Appeal No. 1999-1165 Page 6
Application No. 08/753,174
is no teaching in Vollers of installing the wrench upon the cap by moving it laterally so that
the cap first passes between the legs, and we can perceive no reason why this would be
necessary or desirable. It appears clear to us that one or ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that the body of the wrench is intended to be slipped over the cap in an
axial direction. Moreover, the drawings suggest that the wrench is not capable of being
opened to the extent that would be necessary to install it laterally, considering the
significant difference between the width of the opening at cusps 20 and the diameter of the
bottle cap. Further in this regard, since the legs of the wrench must be rigid enough to
allow the bottle cap to be clamped within the body portion, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, it would seem to be unlikely that the body would be of such a resiliency at its
apex to allow it to open a distance sufficient to allow the cap to pass between the cusps.
For the reasons set forth above, we do not agree with the examiner that Vollers
discloses all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the engaging surfaces in the
wrench body, in that it does not disclose or teach the construction required by the final
seven lines of the claim. This deficiency is not cured by further considering Moulin, Goss
or Gilbert.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). A prima facie case of obviousness is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007