Appeal No. 2006-1745 Page 4
Application No. 10/010,361
As should be apparent from the above discussion, Denby’s quick release
assembly lacks a magnetic attraction or engagement between the cam and the key,
as called for in each of appellant’s claims on appeal. To overcome this deficiency,
the examiner relies on the teachings of Brown.
Brown discloses a magnetic tool that utilizes magnetic force for holding a
member or workpiece such as screws, bolts, nuts and the like in place thereon to
facilitate the placing of the member in a position to be driven. Brown emphasizes
that the magnetic tool is adapted for use with manually operated tools as well as
with power tools and that its novelty resides in the construction of the magnetic
tool itself rather than in the particular use to which it may be put (col. 1, ll. 52-57).
According to the examiner (answer, p. 4), it would have been obvious to provide
the key and cam of Denby with a magnetic attraction/engagement between the two
elements, as taught by Brown, “in order to better retain the two elements in
engagement.”
As stated in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17
(Fed. Cir. 2000),
[m]ost if not all inventions arise from a
combination of old elements. Thus, every element of a
claimed invention may often be found in the prior art.
However, identification in the prior art of each individual
part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the
whole claimed invention. Rather, to establish
obviousness based on a combination of the elements
disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation,
suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007