Appeal No. 1999-2660 Page 8
Application No. 08/850,313
depth of a tower unit (100) to which it is attached and a leveling bar (18) disposed near the
front of the tower unit to maintain the tower unit in a horizontal position with the floor (F). In
addition, we share the examiner's impression (answer, page 6) that to make the pedestal of
Reiter smaller by shortening its length dimension (l) and to place a footpad at the other end of
the computer component would not, as the appellants suggest (brief, page 6), appear to render
inoperative the pedestal taught by Reiter. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the prior art could be
so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432
(Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references which would have
motivated an artisan to modify the pedestal of Reiter in such a fashion as to meet the terms of the
claims. From our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected pieces from the references
together in the manner proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who
first viewed the appellants' disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 18 and
20, which depend from independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 19, and thus also require that the "end
portions" of the bar be adapted to interlace.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007