Appeal No. 2003-0040 7
Application No. 09/314,079
similar to bolts 33 would compromise the ability of Papp’s coverplate and cap to tip to
the side to match the pitch of the floor. This would have been a disincentive to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Papp in this manner. Hence, modification (a) would
not have been obvious. See, for example, Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc.,
192 F.3d 1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d, 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (where the proposed
modification would render the prior art being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious). As to modification
(b), the disclosures in Dannhauser and Johnson of bolts for securing either an insert
plate to a manhole cover (Dannhauser) or a manhole cover to a frame (Johnson) differ
substantially from the disclosure of Papp of a cleanout apparatus that is adjustable to
conform the cleanout to the level of a poured concrete floor. From our perspective,
there is no reasonable suggestion in either reference combination, or need in view of
the divergent objectives of the references involved, for their combination. In this regard,
Papp voices no concern whatsoever for the construction details of the coverplate/cap
subassembly, and Papp’s bolt 33 would appear to be fully capable of maintaining the
position of the coverplate relative to the cap without modification.2
2This assumes that Papp’s coverplate 31 and cap 27 are not an integrated
subassembly. For all Papp discloses, the coverplate may be welded or otherwise
joined to the cap, which would obviate the need for providing separate mechanical
fasteners for securing the coverplate to the cap.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007