Appeal No. 2000-2020
Application No. 09/050,558
Upon careful review of the applied prior art in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’ stated
position in the Briefs. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As alluded to by Appellants (Brief, pages 5 and 6; Reply
Brief, page 4), it is apparent that Van Heeswijk and Wakimizu
teach alternative techniques, i.e. a welding of tongue 21 to
clamping member 10 (Van Heeswijk) and elastic pawls 46 and 48
(Wakimizu), for securing a positioning member to a lamp bulb
structure. We find no support in the disclosure of either of the
disclosures of Van Heeswijk or Wakimizu for the Examiner’s
proposed combination. In our opinion, motivation is lacking for
the skilled artisan to add the elastic pawl members of Wakimizu
to the device of Van Heeswijk to aid in securing the bulb to the
clamping member 10 since Van Heeswijk already provides for a
procedure, i.e. the welding of tongue 21 to the clamping member
10, to secure the bulb. From the above discussion, we can only
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007