Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
We turn now to the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In applying the test for obviousness, this panel of the 3
board determines that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art, from a collective assessment of the
teachings of Claud-Mantle and Poe, to replace the threaded
keeper or hood latch adjuster 24 (30, 31, 32) in the vehicle
environment of Claud-Mantle (Fig. 1) with a known threaded
latch adjuster configuration as taught by Poe. From our
perspective, one having ordinary skill in the art would have
clearly been motivated to make the aforementioned replacement
to gain the expected and self-evident benefits of the 4
alternative, threaded latch adjuster configuration described
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
4In our opinion, Poe can fairly be said to inform those
versed in the art that the disclosed latch adjuster is a time-
saver since the patentee expressly seeks to overcome an
earlier adjustment arrangement that was time consuming (column
1, lines 14 through 17). (italics added for emphasis)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007