Appeal 2007-1595
Application 09/751,858
1 82 USPQ2d at 1396. “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
2 incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
3 field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
4 variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. For the same reason, “if a
5 technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in
6 the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
7 using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s
8 skill.” Id. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
9 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
10 for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at
11 1397.
12
13 ANALYSIS
14 Claims 1-21 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jensen and
15 Pfeiffer.
16 The Examiner finds that Jensen shows control chart analysis, but not date gap
17 analysis or workload adjustments, supra. We concur in these findings (FF05, 06,
18 & 07). The Examiner is unable to show either date gap analysis or workload
19 adjustments in Pfeiffer, supra, and we also find none in Pfeiffer (FF08 & 09). The
20 Examiner contends that the date gap analysis deficiency is resolved by Pfeiffer’s
21 statement regarding a posting of the number of days since the last event throughout
22 a plant, further contending that this would have suggested a safety program alerting
23 workers to the days that have elapsed to provide a concrete goal (Answer 7).
24 While such a safety program might be suggested, we are at a loss to discern the
25 relevance to performing a date gap analysis of all events that are under analysis
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013