Appeal No. 1999-2145 Page 13
Application No. 08/781,605
method of installing the CLOCK SPRING device disclosed in Reinforcement Digest,
Fawley, and Pipeline Reinforcement by replacing the discrete globs of adhesive used to
facilitate the installation of the device with a continuous adhesive of sufficient strength and
presence to “secure” the convolutions to the extent that they do not move relative to one
another when the pipe is pressurized. From our perspective, suggestion for combining the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner is found only in the hindsight afforded
one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.3
It is our conclusion that the applied references fail to establish that the subject
matter recited in independent claims 33 and 47 would have been obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to one of ordinary skill in the art,4 and we will not sustain the rejection of
these claims or of claims 34-40, 43-46, 48-50, 53-58 and 61-63, which depend therefrom.
Claims 41, 42, 51, 59 and 60 stand rejected on the basis of the references applied
against claim 33 et al., taken further with Schumacher, which was cited for its teaching of
3In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
4The 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).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007