Appeal No. 2004-0390 Page 4
Application No. 09/727,397
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). The mere fact that
the prior art could be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does not make
such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. See In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A wrench comprising:
a box end comprising a compartment and a cavity;
a ratchet wheel rotatably mounted in the compartment, an inner periphery
defining the compartment of the box end allowing universal movement of the
ratchet wheel, the ratchet wheel including a plurality of teeth on an outer
periphery thereof;
a pawl mounted in the cavity for engaging with the ratchet wheel; and
means for biasing the pawl toward the ratchet wheel and thus engaging
with the teeth of the ratchet wheel;
the ratchet wheel being completely received in the compartment of the
box end when a central axis of the ratchet wheel is coincident with a central axis
of the compartment of the box end.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007