Ex parte BERENDS et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1999-0195                                                        
          Application 08/507,424                                                      

          control and drive means to coordinate the movements of the                  
          chock bar and carriage to bring pin 100 into registry with one              
          of the holes in the opposite track, the apparent lack of any                
          need for such complexity, and the question of how such a                    
          control and drive mean would be powered, would all act as                   
          disincentives to one of ordinary skill in the art in                        
          considering whether to automate the system of Blunden in light              
          of Cone’s teachings.  In addition, it is not clear how one of               
          ordinary skill in the art would go about automating the system              
          of Blunden along the lines of Cone’s system.  Finally, the                  
          relatively infrequent engagement/disengagement cycle of the                 
          Blunden device as compared to the Cone device makes the need                
          for the proposed automation of Blunden, at best, questionable.              
               The mere fact that the prior art could be modified does                
          not make such a modification obvious absent suggestion of 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 in the applied references which would have led one                
          of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Blunden system in                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007