Appeal No. 2000-0286 Page 11
Application No. 08/704,031
said leg-openings" would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art from the teachings of the applied prior art since Tagawa's
teachings using either elastically expansible members 8 (see
Figures 1-5) or elastically expansible members 115a and 115b
(see Figures 6-10) would have been suggestive to modify
Watanabe's elastic members 13 to be shaped as suggested by the
elastically expansible members 115a and 115b of Tagawa.
Third, with respect to claim 9, it is our view that a prima
facie case of obviousness has not been established since the
examiner has not presenting any evidence that would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant
teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. In that regard, the mere fact that a difference
(between the teachings of the prior art and the claimed
subject matter) does not provide any new result or solve any
recognized problem does not, ipso facto, make that difference
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we view the examiner's
reliance (answer, p. 7) on In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ
7 (CCPA 1975) to be misplaced in this instance.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007