Appeal No. 2002-0161 Page 9
Application No. 09/348,615
Yamaguchi for movably mounting Lechman’s monitor for movement between such
positions5. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
5 The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680,
682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007