Ex Parte Elman et al - Page 8



              Appeal 2007-1204                                                                                                
              Application 10/370,869                                                                                          
              asserted hindsight and nonanalogous art arguments are thus negated by the                                       
              common securing feature.  Moreover, because both references utilize similar T-slot                              
              positioning structures, the proposed modification to the base 10 in Engibarov                                   
              would not detract from its intrinsic structure.                                                                 
                      The Examiner has provided reasons to combine the teachings of the prior                                 
              art.1  In response, the Appellants maintain “[i]t is a fundamental premise in patent                            
              prosecution practice that, in making an assertion of obviousness of Appellants'                                 
              invention in view of a combination of references, there must exist in the references                            
              cited by the Examiner a suggestion or incentive (motivation) supporting the                                     
              combination of references ….” (Br.14, 15).  This was not a correct statement of the                             
              law at the time the brief was filed (see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78                                   
              USPQ2d 1329, 1336, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that the teaching, motivation,                                
              or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, and such implicit                                  
              motivation may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or the                               
              nature of the problem to be solved), and it is no longer the law in view of the                                 
              Supreme Court’s recent holding in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,                              
              82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).  In KSR, the Court characterized the teaching,                                           
              suggestion, motivation test as a “helpful insight” but found that when it is rigidly                            
              applied, it is incompatible with the Court’s precedents. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82                            
                                                                                                                              
              1 One reason provided by the Examiner is, "to have a portable clamp that is                                     
              attachable to any number of work surfaces for semi permanent use of a clamping                                  
              base" (Answer 4). In his Supplemental Answer (second paragraph) to Appellants'                                  
              Supplemental Reply (Nov. 29, 2005, 2), the Examiner states that combining the                                   
              teachings would have been "clear because you have multiple workholders you are                                  
              going to modify each of them to make improvements to the current workholders."                                  
                                                              8                                                               



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013