Appeal No. 1999-2439 Page 5
Application No. 08/731,857
See, for example, W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In that regard, it
is our view that the combined teachings of the applied prior 2
art would have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
modified Van Hoose's male member (i.e., rectangular shank 16)
to accept the extension bar 12 of Cromwell's tool extension
adapter 10.
Moreover, we agree with the appellant's argument (brief,
p. 10) that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
either (1) a socket having different sized openings at each
end thereof as recited in claim 14, or (2) a straight adapter
having different sized openings at each end thereof as recited
in claim 14. Likewise, the applied prior art does not teach
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007