Appeal No. 2003-0131
Application 09/533,060
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination
that Mueller’s alternate sensor at 206 is mounted to a cover pan
which is “stamped,” and the examiner does not dispute the
appellants’ assertion that Mueller’s sensor 200 and Hilker’s
sensor 40 are respectively mounted to a carrier 12 and an access
cover plate 34 which are “cast” (as opposed to “stamped”). The
appellants, however, do challenge the examiner’s determination
that Mueller’s sensor at 206 is adjustably coupled via a threaded
connection to the stamped cover pan, and argue that there is no
suggestion in Mueller and Hilker to provide a stamped cover plate
with a boss having a generally planar mounting surface for
aligning and mounting a sensor with the sensor being adjustably
coupled to the cover pan as recited in claims 1 and 10.
Obviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings
of the prior art to produce a claimed invention absent some
teaching or suggestion supporting the combination. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The mere fact
that the prior art might be modified in a manner advanced by an
examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior
art suggests the desirability of the modification. Id. In the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007