Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
vertical and horizontal adjustments. In the present case,
the level of skill is demonstrated by the teachings of the
cited references to be relatively high in the mechanical
art.
Needless to say, we disagree with appellant’s
arguments on page 15 of the main brief about the lack of
motivation for modifying Giladi’s adjustment mechanism.
The simplification of the adjustment structure, the motion
imparted to the platforms by the adjustments and the
controls for making the adjustments would have been ample
motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize
Cepparo’s simplified adjustment structure in place of
Giladi’s compound adjustment structure.
With regard to appellant’s arguments on page 15 of the
main brief, appellant seems to raise questions about the
difficulty in bodily incorporating Cepparo’s adjustment
structure into Giladi’s vehicle. However, it is well
settled that the test for obviousness is not whether
features of one reference can be bodily incorporated in the
structure of another reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.
2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the
inquiry should be into the concepts fairly contained in the
applied references to determine whether those concepts
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007