Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The Federal Circuit
reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed.
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), that for the
determination of obviousness, the court must answer whether
one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve the
problem and who had before him in his workshop the prior art,
would have been reasonably expected to use the solution that
is claimed by the Appellants.
We find that, as mentioned above, Gary teaches a
wheelchair lift with fixed sides and a gate at one end while a
back panel attached to the car rotates along a horizontal axis
to provide a ramp to the car. The whole assembly rests on a
supporting frame which includes a jack for raising and
lowering the car. Gary further teaches in col. 5, lines 40
through 59 that a three-way switch 12, actuates the pump for
either raising or lowering the platform as well as stopping it
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007