Appeal No. 2004-0729 Page 5
Application No. 09/957,202
biased in the clockwise direction toward its fully covered position (Figure 16),
whereupon the cover motor means 78 is deactivated, the tension on cover 64 is
released and a compression spring 174 expands to displace the locking member
beneath the locking bracket as illustrated in Figure 15.
In rejecting claims 1, 2, 9 and 10, the examiner takes the position that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
to replace the stop (lip 36) of Lawson with a stop (L-shaped bracket 170 of Henning) on
the sidewall toward which the cover is drawn in the covering process, as taught by
Henning, to reduce the possibility of the contents of the truck spilling out when the truck
is driven on rough terrain (answer, page 4).
Appellant does not dispute that the modification to Lawson proposed by the
examiner would result in the invention recited in appellant’s claim 1. Rather, appellant
argues that the motivation expressed by the examiner for the modification is not found in
either of the applied references and thus stems from impermissible hindsight (see pages
5-6 of the brief).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima facie case of obviousness is established where
the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art
having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or modification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007