Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 14
Application No. 10/651,205
(34, 36). The mounting portions can be torn away at the perforations to adjust the
length of the tag. (Fast, col. 2, lines 35-41).
The Fast reference is directed to the same purpose as the claimed invention,
viz, to adjust the point at which the support is mounted to the wall by providing
adjustable mounting surfaces. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659-60, 23 USPQ2d
1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the
claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports
use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.”) The specification describes that
the purpose of the score lines (69 and 60) is “to allow a portion of the first
mounting surface to be removed to obtain proper positioning of the brace assembly
(11) for various wall thicknesses.” (Specification, page 6, para. [0032]). Similarly,
the purpose of the perforations (34, 36) of Fast is to allow a portion of the
mounting surface (14, 16, 18) to be removed to obtain proper positioning of the tag
(10) for various suspension hook lengths. (Fast, col. 2, lines 42-49). As such, we
find that Fast is analogous art to the claimed invention and is a proper reference on
which to base a finding of obviousness.
The appellants do not otherwise contest the teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine Fast with Rinderer and Harris. We agree with the
examiner’s reasoning for the motivation in the art to combine these references.
With regard to claim 6, the appellants argue that even when combined, Fast
does not cure the deficiency of Rinderer, in that neither reference teaches or
suggests a compression fit between the first mounting surface and the support.
(Appellants’ Brief, pp. 13-14). Similarly, the appellants argue that claims 18-21
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007