Appeal No. 2000-0006 Page 8
Application No. 08/868,480
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462,
221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, the examiner determined (final rejection,
p. 3) that to arrive at the subject matter on appeal that it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify
Christenson to include (1) fixed nonpivot attachment of
Christenson's springs to the mounting supports as taught by
Gottschalk in order to attach the springs conventionally and
(2) a common shaft with the axle assemblies of Christenson
rotating with the shaft as taught by Tweedie in order to
simplify structure supporting both assemblies in a manner well
known in the art.
The appellant argues in the brief and reply brief that
the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject
matter. We agree. We have reviewed the combined teachings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007