Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
firing the assembly to secure the components together. Davis
is cited as evidence that it was known in the art prior to the
appellant’s invention to assemble two components such that one
conceals the molding sprue of the other.
As noted above, all of the rejected claims require the
step of firing the article and plug assembly to secure the
article and the plug together. The examiner does not suggest
that either reference teaches this step. Rather, it is the
examiner’s position that Davis teaches the concept of
concealing a sprue under a product component, that Nakamura
teaches bonding two ceramic components by firing and that
Davis’ concept “could be used in the process of Nakamura to
enhance the aesthetics of any product” made thereby. See
Answer, p. 16.
As to the examiner's contention that Davis’ concept could
be used in the process of Nakamura, we must point out the mere
fact that the prior art could be modified would not have made
the modifications obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and In re
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007