Appeal No. 2002-0492
Application 09/348,141
It is not disputed that Dudley meets all of the limitations
in claim 16 except for the one requiring the leg support
structure to include “a latching mechanism that releasably
maintains said leg support structure in said second position.”
As conceded by the examiner, Dudley “is silent regarding a
latching mechanism on the leg support structure [posts 46]”
(answer, page 3). Nonetheless, the examiner submits that
[i]t is common to latch legs in an extended position in
order to prevent collapse (folding tables, for example)
and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
at the time the invention was made to have used a latch
on the leg support structure to releasably maintain the
leg support structure in the second position for this
purpose [answer, page 3].
Of this proposed modification of the Dudley ramp, the
appellants argue that
it is untenable to look to the teachings of folding
tables and other unrelated devices. In order to modify
a reference, and [in] combining references, there must
be motivation. The broad desire to lock a leg in
vastly unrelated fields [does] not provide this
motivation. Since the Dudley patent admittedly does
not provide the requisite motivation, and the broad
desire to lock a leg in other unrelated contexts is
insufficient, applicants submit that the modification
is improper [brief, pages 7 and 8].
A conclusion of obviousness may be based on common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007