Appeal No. 2000-0759
Application No. 08/772,198
1984) ("In determining whether a case of prima facie
obviousness exists, it is necessary to ascertain whether the
prior art teachings would appear to be sufficient to one of
ordinary skill in the art to suggest making the claimed
substitution or other modification").
Looking at the Bailey patent, it is apparent that it
discloses a connector (13), clip (29, 31) and panel (11)
assembly akin to that disclosed by appellant. However, a
close review of the disclosure of the Bailey patent regarding
the construction and operation of the clip member(s) reveals
that the clip in Bailey is both structurally and functionally
different than that set forth in appellant's claims on appeal.
More specifically, in contrast to appellant's claimed subject
matter in independent claims 8 and 11 on appeal, it is clear
to us that the clip in Bailey has no first tab
having a first portion that extends away from the
coupler and toward the back side of the panel to an
apex, the apex spaced in the longitudinal direction
from the back side of the panel and laterally
outward of the edge surface of the aperture, the
first tab having a second portion that extends from
the apex toward the coupler and toward the back side
of the panel and terminating at the first tab end,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007