Appeal No. 2004-0729 Page 6
Application No. 09/957,202
See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Moreover,
in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Evidence of a suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine
may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved, although the
suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the pertinent references. The range
of sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement for actual evidence.
That is, the showing must be clear and particular. Broad conclusory statements
regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not "evidence." In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In this case, the advantages of a positive locking arrangement such as the one
taught by Henning to lock the truck bed cover tarp in the closed position to prevent
release, and spillage of contents, in the event of bouncing during driving on rough
terrain, over the simple abutment arrangement of the lip 36 of the frame 34 on the free
side of the cover against the sidewall 18 illustrated in Figure 7 of Lawson are self-evident
and would have provided ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant’s invention to provide such a locking arrangement, including an L-shaped
bracket or stop mounted on the trailer or bed of the truck as taught by Henning, on
Lawson’s truck trailer. Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007