Appeal Number: 2006-1289
Application Number: 10/147,320
We agree with the appellants that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been motivated to substitute the bolt of Hager
which includes a catch and lattice structure with the bolt 110 of
Brock. As Hager teaches that the therein disclosed bolt is used to
connect a cover of a meter box to the box itself, a person of ordinary
skill would not be motivated by the teachings of Hager to use the
Hager bolt instead of the Brock bolt 110 around which an automotive
gear shifting subassembly pivots. The technical requirements for a
bolt to connect a cover to a meter box are totally different from the
technical requirements of a bolt around which an automotive gear
shifting subassembly rotates. Therefore, any motivation to combine
the teachings of Hager and Brock in the manner suggested by the
examiner could only be acquired through impermissible hindsight
reconstruction using the appellants’ claimed invention as a guide.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-5, 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Brock in view of Hager. We
likewise will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because this rejection also relies on the combination of Brock
and Hager and the disclosure of Neubert does not cure the deficiencies
of the Brock/Hager combination.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013