Appeal No. 1999-2799 Page 5
Application No. 08/609,381
Second, expedients which are functionally equivalent to
each other are not necessarily obvious in view of one another.
In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019, 139 USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA
1963). The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this
instance, we perceive no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references to replace the simple and easy to use spring
controlled ball detent arrangement of Davies with a
complicated, expensive and cumbersome latching system as
taught by Christoffel. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for putting the selected pieces from the references
together in the manner proposed by the examiner is found in
the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellant's disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper
basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1-15 and 19 as being unpatentable over
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007