Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
The rejections in this case are made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
initially note that the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), which is established when the teachings of the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
The examiner finds that Brock discloses the invention as claimed except that
Brock does not disclose a bolt having a catch and lattice structure. The examiner
relies on Hager for teaching a bolt having a catch and lattice structure and
concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to replace the
bolt of Brock with the bolt of Hager so as to provide a
more secure bolt connection, while allowing for the bolt
to be easily removed for repairs or maintenance [final
rejection at page 2].
We find that Hager relates to distribution devices installed on a
meter panel with interlocking parts placed at opposite sides of a cover
hood for the snap fastening of the cover hood to the carrier frame
(page 3).
We find that Brock discloses an automotive gear changing
device including a pivot bolt 110 around which an automotive gear
shifting subassembly pivots (Figure 1).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013