Appeal No. 2002-1119
Application 09/455,064
observing that Konopacki clearly teaches inserting a wedge (18)
and probe (10) between two elements and that Fenner also clearly
teaches inserting a probe between two elements (84) and (88).
After careful consideration, we must agree with appellant’s
argument (brief, pages 4-9 and reply brief) that the references
to Konopacki and Fenner would not have been fairly combinable in
the manner urged by the examiner to render obvious the method
claimed by appellant. Given the disparate nature of the
particular door and window arrangement as seen in Konopacki (Fig.
1) and that disclosed in Fenner (Figs. 3-4), we see no teaching,
suggestion or incentive for modifying the vehicle of Konopacki in
the manner urged by the examiner. The examiner’s reasoning that
such a modification would have been obvious merely because “it is
well known in the art that cars have the claimed window frames”
(answer, page 4), in our view, provides no substantive
evidentiary basis for the proposed modification of the particular
door and window arrangement as shown and taught in Konopacki to
be like that shown in Fenner. As for the examiner’s further
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007