Appeal No. 2006-1105
Application No. 10/643,626
teaches that the arms and feet should be rotatable towards one another so that the
device will require a minimum space for storage (id.). Appellant argues that neither
reference discloses or suggests providing a pair of laterally spaced feet extending
rearwardly from a bottom edge of a frame extending completely around the grid wiping
surface as required by claim 12 on appeal (Brief, pages 5-6).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The test for obviousness in not
whether the entire apparatus or device of one reference may be bodily incorporated into
another reference, but what the combined disclosures and 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; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981. Although the angled portions 54,56 disclosed by
Passafiume accomplish a similar function as the feet of Welt (compare col. 4, ll. 55-64,
of Passafiume with col. 1, ll. 44-45; col. 2, ll. 25-28, and ll. 40-45 of Welt), the examiner
has only proposed incorporating the frame 12 from the device of Passafiume into the
similar device of Welt for its intended benefit, i.e., to provide support and added rigidity
for the grid wiping surface (Answer, pages 3-5). See Passafiume, col. 2, ll. 3-5; col. 3,
ll. 30-34; and col. 4, ll. 10-11. As correctly noted by the examiner, the provision of such
a frame around the structure of Welt need not eliminate the function or operability of the
hooks and feet taught by Welt, as one of ordinary skill in this art “could easily provide a
reinforcing frame around the grid of Welt without eliminating the movement of the hooks
and feet of Welt” (Answer, page 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007