Appeal No. 1999-0180
Application No. 08/629,260
made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested
the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the
applied references simply would not have suggested the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of the proposed
modification. In this regard, the examiner’s rationale,
quoted above, for providing flexible protrusions on the screen
plate of Garenfeld in view of Sciple does not suffice. First,
the test for obviousness is not what is “notorious[ly] old and
well known in the art.” Second, it is questionable whether
Sciple teaches that prongs 23 increase comfort or facilitate
transmission of vibration forces into the body, as implied by
the examiner. In this regard, the only instance in Sciple
where the prongs 23 are mentioned occurs on page 2, lines 6-
10, wherein it is stated the applicator 22 “is molded or
otherwise formed of rubber or other suitable elastic material,
and is preferably provided with a plurality of projecting
flexible prongs 23 for application to the body of the
patient.” In addition, in that the provision of protrusions
on the screen plate of Garenfeld would cause the screen plate,
and thus the depilation members of the apparatus, to be spaced
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007