Appeal No. 1999-2371 Page 4
Application No. 08/909,834
by a screw driver to be removed. The examiner’s position with regard to this argument is
that
[t]he skilled artisan would have recognized that engagement and
disengagement of the parts to be fastened could be accomplished
exclusively through pulling and pushing forces since the heads are resilient.
The motivation being [sic, is] the inaccessibility to the screw driver slot or the
unavailability of a screwdriver. (Answer, page 2, emphasis added.)
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).
Hiraki teaches securing a speaker grille to a cabinet by means of bolts. There is no
teaching in this patent that relates to a push-on, pull-off system of securement, and it
therefore fails to disclose or teach most of the elements of the claimed system. Figure 2 of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007