Appeal No. 2003-0514 Page 6
Application No. 09/820,147
the art at the time the invention was made to have attached the guide tubes of AAPA to
the frame by swaging. In that regard, we note that the applied prior art does not teach
that swaging provides better securement than welding and therefore the examiner's
stated motivation to have modified the AAPA does not come from the applied prior art.
Moreover, the applied prior art does not establish that swaging and welding are well
known alternatives in the art of securing a tube within an aperture of a frame.
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner to reject claims 13 to 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
2(...continued)
elements from references to fill the gaps. The references themselves must provide some teaching
whereby the appellants' 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007