Appeal No. 2000-0212
Application 08/914,477
wheels from the prior art device is [sic:in] Figure 2 of Oda
as urged by the examiner is contrary to the teaching of Oda”
(brief, page 7). However, this statement mischaracterizes the
examiner’s position, which is not that it would have been
obvious to eliminate the rear wheels of the Oda Fig. 2
vehicle, but rather, as indicated
above, that it would have been obvious to provide the Travers
toy car with the drive system shown in Oda’s Fig. 2.
Appellants further argue that Travers’ disclosure of a
front bumper extending beyond the vehicle wheels, and of
interiorly mounted wheels, “is a teaching which leads one of
ordinary skill in the art away from the present invention not
toward it” (id.). This argument is not persuasive, because
claim 9 does not contain any limitations requiring that the
body not protrude in front of the wheels, or that the wheels
be exteriorly mounted, and it is fundamental that under § 103
the question to be determined is whether “what is claimed
would have been obvious from the combined teachings of the
references.” In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007