Appeal No. 1999-1764
Application No. 08/827,544
The Wilson document addresses a device for attaching an
object to a surface (Fig. 1). However, the focus of patentee
Wilson (column 3) is upon a flexible resilient elongate member
(bungee cord or stretch cord) which is attached to suction cup
32 (Figs. 2 and 3). The Wolterstorff reference is certainly
representative of a safety buckle assembly. Nevertheless,
absent appellant’s own teaching and impermissible reliance
upon hindsight, it is apparent to us that one having ordinary
skill in the art would have had no reason to selectively
choose a buckle and strap assembly from among the myriad
available mechanical alternatives for attaching one member to
another. Only appellant provides the motivation to make the
specific selection of a buckle and strap assembly, i.e., to
reinforce the safety habit of buckling up with a seat belt, as
explained above. We also note that the patent to Irizarry
does not overcome the discussed deficiencies of the Wilson and
Wolterstorff references. Since the evidence before us does
not establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we need not
address appellant’s submitted evidence of nonobviousness
(secondary considerations), i.e., the respective Johnstone
declarations.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007