Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 9
Application No. 08/370,540
Claims 1 and 2
Based on our analysis and review of Zlotnik and claims 1
and 2, it is our opinion that the only differences are the
limitations that (1) the back plate, top member and bottom
member are separately constructed (claim 1) or separate
components (claim 2), (2) cooperative flexible interlocking
means for joining the back plate and top member, and (3)
cooperative flexible interlocking means for joining the back
plate and bottom member.
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
formed Zlotnik's frame 3 from three separate components (i.e.,
a back plate, a top plate/member and a bottom plate/member)
and to have provided cooperative flexible interlocking means
for joining the back plate to both the top plate/member and
bottom plate/member in view of the teachings of Tisbo. In our
view, the motivation for this modification of Zlotnik comes
not from impermissible hindsight but from the prior art
teachings of two well-known alternatives of construction of a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007