Appeal 2006-2206
Application 10/743,380
need only apply pressure to the cross member pivot pin 24 to permit the
screening device to fold up (Specification 8).
Crane does not disclose the above-noted pivotal cross member
arrangement. Rather, Crane discloses a device where spreaders 6 (i.e., cross
members) are pivotally attached to a ferrule 7 (Fig. 1, p. 1, ll. 67-74), not
“together” as the required by claim 8. Moreover, Crane’s device requires
that the ferrule 7 slidably engage shaft 1 to permit the spreaders 6 (i.e., cross
members) to open or close (p. 1, ll. 21-27, 66-77).
Hence, Crane’s device is substantially different in structure and
operation from Flynn’s device, such that there would have been no
motivation, absent impermissible hindsight, for combining Crane’s pivotally
attached spreader 6 (i.e., cross member) with Flynn’s aquatic seine device.
Obviousness can not be established by hindsight combination to produce the
claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885,
1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 8 and dependent claim 11, which depends upon claim 8,
over Flynn in view of Crane.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER FLYNN
Appellant has not argued the § 103(a) rejection of claims 5 and 6 over
Flynn. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of non-
argued claims 5 and 6.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 under § 102(b)
over Flynn is AFFIRMED.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013