Appeal No. 2007-1188
Application 10/621,131
“Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense,
however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” A
person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton. Id.
Finally, we observe that each of the elements of claim 1 are known elements
being used for their established functions. The crossover mirror is used as a
known crossover mirror for a school bus (Englander) meeting known safety
standards. The crossover mirror is mounted in accordance with known tubular
mounting methods (Bateman). A mirror remote control is used as is known to
remotely adjust a mirror (Foster). “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The
Examiner has established obviousness. The burden now rests with the Applicant
to establish why the results were not predictable or were beyond the skill of the
person of ordinary skill in the art. The Applicant has not come forth with any
persuasive evidence in support of its position.
Although the Appeal Brief contains a separate section for each of dependent
claims 2, 3, 6 and 7, each such section merely recites the additional claim feature
of the dependent claim and refers by reference to the same argument and evidence
as presented for independent claim 1. No separate substantive argument has been
presented for any dependent claim. Accordingly, dependent claims 2, 3, 6 and 7
stand and fall with independent claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013