Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
of appellants, we have concluded, supra, that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have derived a suggestion from and been
motivated by a consideration of the combined teachings of the
applied prior art to effect the proposed modification. As
explained above, the reference teachings themselves would have
been suggestive of their combination. As to the comment by
appellants (revised brief, page 11) that Claud-Mantle “does
not disclose or suggest adjusting the keeper 24 along the axis
of the threaded shank 30," it is our opinion that the overall
threaded keeper arrangement of this reference would have
readily been understood by one having ordinary skill in the
art as evidencing an adjustable keeper configuration,
adjustable along its axis. For the reasons stated above, we
are in accord with the examiner’s viewpoint (answer, pages 5
and 6) that, in the present instance, the combination of
applied teachings is not an impermissible hindsight
reconstruction, as argued.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claims 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Claud-Mantle in view of Poe.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007