Appeal No. 2004-2282 2
Application No. 09/989,555
Appellant’s request for rehearing alleges that this panel committed two errors in
affirming the examiner’s decision. First, the request (page 9) urges that this panel
applied the incorrect legal standard for obviousness when we pointed out on pages 5-6
of our decision that
the differences between a springless and a spring-loaded
latch mechanism are not of such a nature that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from
providing on the springless latch mechanism of either
Recchione or Finch an enlarged loop disposed through a
hole in the spring bolt, as taught by any of Lacey, Dollman
and Coultaus, to obtain the self-evident advantage of a
vehicle for applying a pulling force to the latch.
The above-quoted statement from our decision is not a statement of motivation for the
modification proposed by the examiner but, rather, a response to appellant’s argument
in the appeal brief (page 8) that the teaching by Lacey, Dollman and Coultaus of using a
loop in a spring-loaded bolt or latch to pull the bolt or latch to the open or unlocked
position against the bias of a spring, with closing movement of the latch being a result
only of a compressed spring returning to a relaxed position, in fact teaches away from
using a loop to close the latch. As to the specific question of "teaching away," our
reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1994) stated:
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007