Appeal No. 2003-0371 Page 8
Application No. 09/465,941
art to modify the Woods device in the manner proposed by the examiner, and it
appears to us that such is found only in the hindsight afforded one who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure. We further point out it is not apparent that the Woods system
would function in the manner desired if such a change were made, which would operate
as a disincentive to the artisan to make the proposed modification.
Thus, Woods and Carlson fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 2, and we will not sustain this rejection.
Claims 5-8 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Woods in view of
Tenebaum. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 through claims 3 and 4, with claim 3 stating
that the holder recited in claim 1 can be opened to enable the stringer to be positioned
therein and released therefrom, and claim 4 that this is accomplished by means of a
spring clip. Claim 5 further requires that the spring clip be “clipped to a ring to close the
holder.” The examiner has taken the position that in view of Tenebaum’s showing of
using a strap attached by a spring clip to support a load in a trailer, it would have been
obvious to replace the spring clips disclosed by Woods for holding the stringers in place
with a strap and clip assembly. The examiner has not, however, stated why it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make this change to Woods,
and such is not apparent to us. In the absence of suggestion to combine the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner, we agree with the appellant that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007