Appeal No. 2001-0861 Page 6
Application No. 08/741,964
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).
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, stands rejected on two theories as being
unpatentable over Mecca in view of Harte. Claim 2 adds to claim 1 the requirement that
the releasable attachment means include a snow plow strap, a snow plow connector
through which the strap is threaded and a vehicle ring connector to attach the strap to
the vehicle, with the snow plow ring connector being attached to the vehicle ring
connector. The examiner’s first theory of rejection is that the eye part of Mecca’s shear
pin constitutes the snow plow ring connector, and while Mecca lacks a vehicle ring
connector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007