Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
The short answer to McLaughlin's argument that the need for his
invention was long felt but unmet need is that, in the absence of evidence
that the problem was recognized, and that others had tried and failed efforts
to solve it, mere silence on this record is not proof that there was a need, that
the need was long felt, or that it was unmet.
The rejection of claims 1–20 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Villwock and Eldridge is AFFIRMED.
We therefore also AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-20 over the
combined teachings of Villwock, Eldridge, and Ray, as cumulative with the
first rejection for obviousness.
D. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing facts and considerations, it is:
ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Villwock is AFFIRMED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-20 as
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Eldridge is AFFIRMED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-20 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Villwock and
Eldridge is AFFIRMED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-20 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Villwock,
Eldridge, and Ray is AFFIRMED.
-26-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013