Appeal No. 1998-0127
Application No. 08/609,670
opinion that “nothing unobvious is seen to have been involved
in simply having applied this known expedient for a cable
releasing and retracting system” [answer, page 5]. We agree
with appellants on this point as well.
The examiner’s position is tantamount to saying that
the application of old ideas or old devices can never support
patentability. The essence of invention, however, is the
application of knowledge to make something which is novel and
unobvious. Individual elements of a combination are usually
known in the art. It is the placement of these elements in
the combination which must be considered for obviousness.
Although it may be obvious to use a substantially constant
force spring system in a reproduction system as claimed, there
is no evidence on this record to support such a conclusion.
Obviousness is not established by the examiner failing to see
nonobviousness in an
invention. The prior art must specifically suggest the
claimed subject matter in order to find obviousness.
Appellants are correct that there is nothing in the applied
prior art to suggest the claimed substantially constant force
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007