Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
813, 136 USPQ 442, 444 (CCPA 1963), that the reversal of the
operation of parts is an obvious expedient, the Court has
cautioned that such “obvious expedient” findings must be based
upon a determination of obviousness under § 103, and not upon
a “mechanical rule.” In re Wright, 343 F.2d 761, 769-70, 145
USPQ 182, 190 (CCPA 1965). In the present case, it is, first,
not apparent to us that putting Nolte’s keeper on the sash and
cams on the jamb could be accomplished without modification of
the parts involved; for one thing, the handle 10 would have to
be relocated so that it would not project from the outside of
the sash, an obviously undesirable location. Second,
appellant argues on page 15 of his brief that it would not
have been obvious to locate the movable parts, including the
motor, on the sash, in view of the fact that suitable power
would have to be provided to the motor. Considering the
record as a whole, we conclude that there would have been no
motivation for one of ordinary skill to locate the keeper
apparatus of Nolte, motorized as suggested by Wydler, on the
sash of the window, and thus that
such an arrangement would have been unobvious to one of
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007