Appeal No. 1999-1765 Page 22
Application No. 08/839,193
through a plate a sufficient distance to allow an end cap to
be attached thereto. Jabsen shows tube 12, 26 that merely
slips through opening 16A in grid 13. Sleeve 27, of Jabsen,
is subsequently slipped over tube 12, 26 and threaded into
opening 16A, with nut 28 then attached thereto. While the
tube of Jabsen does extend through a plate, with a nut or “end
cap” subsequently attached thereto, in our view there is no
motivation or incentive present in the teachings of either
Meier or Jabsen that would have led one of ordinary skill in
this art to have modified Meier (i.e., extend tube 9 through
plate 5, eliminate abutting nut 10 and substitute an end cap
therefor) as taught by Jabsen, in the manner urged by the
examiner. 4
Because of the foregoing, we will therefore not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jabsen and Meier.
4The mere fact that the prior art structure could be
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007