Appeal No. 2001-1301
Application 08/867,949
fasteners thus being placed on the film. As so modified, the
film would have hook-type fasteners as recited in claim 43 which
are inherently capable of selectively engaging the fabric of a
fabric covered surface as recited in claim 39. The appellant
counters that there is no motivation or suggestion for this
modification, and that it therefore rests on impermissible
hindsight.
The assessment of this obviousness issue must take into
account the skill that must be presumed on the part of the
artisan (see In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985)), the common knowledge and common sense of such
a person (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)), and, in addition to the specific teachings of the
prior art, the inferences which the artisan would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom (see In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)). Viewed in this light, the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is well taken. One of ordinary skill
in the art, considering the Easyboard product as a whole,
including its structure and intended use, would not attach any
significance to whether the loop-type and hook-type fasteners
were disposed on the film and core board, respectively, or on the
core board and film, respectively, and therefore would consider
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007