Appeal 2007-1723
Application 10/893,962
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness can
be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the
known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d at 1396. Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Redelberger teaches a power window closing member control
system with every claimed feature except for the control means to increase
the output of the drive motor during a time period beginning when the motor
is locked upon the window’s arrival to the fully closed position. The
Examiner cites Barge as teaching that is essential to increase the motor’s
output during a period beginning when the window is in a closed position.
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the motor
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013