Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
powered exhaust fans that do not require hard-wiring to an electrical
infrastructure.
Additionally, to the extent that Appellants seek to limit the
obviousness inquiry to their “problem” (i.e., lack of power infrastructure in
landfills), Appellants’ argument is foreclosed by KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742,
82 USPQ2d at 1398. Moreover, Appellants’ argument regarding their
“problem” was foreclosed prior to KSR. See, In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (diesel composition invented to
reduce pollution on burning held obvious because same composition would
have been obvious to reduce freezing in valves when diesel pumped during
cold weather) and In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311
(Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining reason to combine prior art references does not
have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted Adkins, II’s
solar-powered exhaust fan for Longo, Sr.’s blower 28 in his method and
apparatus for removing methane from landfill wells because Adkins, II’s
fans are “portable and modular in construction,” “inexpensive and easy to
fabricate,” and easy to install (Adkins, II col. 2, ll. 19-23, 27-28).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of argued
claims 9 and 15 and non-argued claims 12-14, 17, and 18 over Longo, Sr. in
view of Adkins, II.
NON-ARGUED § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Appellants have not separately argued the following § 103(a)
rejections: (1) the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 8 over Adkins, II in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013