Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
circumference and a pin extending from only one side of the
rod.
While the examiner may be correct that the substitution
of the button and pin arrangement taught by Kentish for that
disclosed by Mesenhöller would perform substantially the same
function in substantially the same manner to produce
substantially the same results, thereby making the proposed
modification feasible, the mere fact that the prior art could
be so modified would not have made the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d
1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this instance, the
prior art discloses a slider ring and through pin arrangement
in combination with two angular slots (Mesenhöller first
embodiment) and a button and non-through pin arrangement in
combination with a single elongate slot (Mesenhöller second
embodiment and Kentish). We find nothing in the teachings of
Mesenhöller and Kentish which would have suggested a button
and non-through pin arrangement in combination with an angular
slot (i.e., an engagement slot having first and second slot
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007