Appeal 2006-1417
Application 09/326,405
in the Request were fully considered in reaching our decision that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Appellant poses the question “what motivation would there be for
someone skilled in the art to replace a framed screen which can be installed
and removed from the inside of the house with some difficulty, with an
unframed screen that is designed to be easily removed from the inside when
mounted on the inside of a window frame, but would be more difficult to
remove and install when mounted on the exterior of a window frame?”
(Request 5, first para.). However, the motivation expressed by Appellant is
misplaced and misses the thrust of our reasoning in support of the legal
conclusion of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Lazarek
evidences that it was known in the art to employ the well-known,
conventional hook and loop fasteners for securing a window screen to a
structure. Therefore, we concluded, and remain of the opinion, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the window
system of Kehne so as to utilize such conventional hook and loop fasteners
to provide easy and quick mounting and dismounting of the screen. We
perceive nothing nonobvious in substituting one known securing means for
another when both means were known for securing a window screen to a
structure, and Appellant has advanced no reason why such a modification
would have been nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013