Ex parte CHRISTENSON - Page 8

          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