Appeal No. 1998-0402
Application No. 08/490,046
sleeve, but are separate components, and the purpose of the
above-described arrangement is to limit the stem to “a
precisely defined travel distance . . . [which] leads to a
clearly defined good/bad indication” in response to the
displacement of a specific quantity of material during
welding, that is, the amount of material that is required to
fill the recess (column 4, lines 1-7). We also note that
Kunnecke is concerned about inappropriate movement of the
non-integral piston and stem prior to welding, and means to
hold it in the inward position until welding takes place is
provided (see column 4, lines 16-24).
It is axiomatic that the mere fact that the prior art
structure could be modified does not make such a modification
obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of
doing so. See, for example, In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, we fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sturm in
the manner proposed by the examiner. In this regard, we first
focus
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007