Appeal No. 2000-1477 Page 4
Application No. 08/654,739
7, because it would be “a matter of design preference, dependent upon such factors as
cost and material availability or aesthetic purposes,” and would provide greater strength
(Answer, page 4). We do not agree.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp,
227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or
from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from
the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not make such
a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Even if one
accepts, arguendo, the examiner’s conclusion that the lower horizontal member in
Figure 3 of Go Rhino is capable of supporting the weight of a person, it clearly does not
meet the terms of the claim, in that it is not a generally tubular member having an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007