Appeal No. 2000-1307 Page 10
Application No. 08/474,314
a template and selecting elements from references to fill the gaps. The references
themselves must provide some teaching whereby the appellant's combination would
have been obvious. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That is, something in the prior art as a whole must
suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination. See In
re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221
USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case there is no motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability in
the applied prior art of modifying the molded chair of Thaden to produce the claimed
subject matter. In that regard, the applied prior art would not have suggested modifying
the molded chair of Thaden to employ a shell structure as taught by Deegener to
ensure greater stability since the construction of the chair of Thaden and the seat of
Deegener are vastly different such that it would not have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided design
features of Deegener in the chair of Thaden. Moreover, it is not apparent to us that
Thaden's chair is unstable or that employing a shell structure would increase stability.
In addition, the applied prior art would not have suggested modifying the molded chair
of Thaden to employ interconnecting frame members as taught by Burton to enable the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007