Appeal No. 2004-2256
Application 10/042,738
has barbs. As a consequence, this proposed modification, by
itself, clearly would not have remedied the deficiency (e.g.,
the here claimed receivers and barbs relationship), which the
examiner has implicitly acknowledged exists, vis-à-vis the window
frame disclosed by Hopper versus the window frame defined by
claim 13.
In contast, it is the examiner’s conclusion on page 5
of the Answer that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide Suh with a plurality of
barbs and receivers with their attendant install and ship
orientations, as taught by Hopper, to more securely connect the
frame halves together.” The modification here proposed by the
examiner is not well taken. As correctly observed by the
appellant, the Hopper patent simply does not contain any teaching
or suggestion concerning the here claimed ship orientation and
install orientation features. It follows that no basis exists
for concluding that it would have been obvious to modify the
window frame of Suh and thereby yield “install and ship
orientations, as taught by Hopper” (id.) pursuant to the
examiner’s aforequoted obvious conclusion.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007