Appeal No. 2006-1085
Application No. 10/392,209
the combined teachings to be reasonably drawn from the applied patents
would not have led an artisan to the combination urged by the examiner.
As appellant has noted on page 8 of the brief, the mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does not
make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability
of the modification. Here, we find no suggestion in either Karashima or
John, whether considered individually or collectively, of the desirability of
the modification urged by the examiner. As indicated on page 9 of the brief,
Karashima discloses a supermarket goods display cart that can be quickly
and easily connected and disconnected from other movable display carts by
a simple vertical movement of one cart relative to another, without the use of
any additional parts. Note particularly, Figures 1-3, 6(a) and 6(b) of
Karashima. As also noted by appellant, there is no indication or reason to
conclude that the particular connecting feature shown in Karashima is in any
way deficient. By comparison, John discloses an interlocking modular pallet
apparatus wherein a plurality of modular platform sections (12-15) are
initially joined together by interconnecting flanges (52, 54), and then
ultimately drawn together and secured in a final position by a metal locking
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007