Appeal 2007-1870
Application 10/688,449
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner held that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of
Ohno with the indicia as taught by Bond to adapt the tool with marking indicating
the type and/or the size of the tool” (Answer 5). The Examiner further found the
fact that the motivation for placing the indicia on the convex end portions of the
tool is for line of sight, and not for the reason of reduced wear as intended by the
present application, does not exclude the combined references from rendering the
claimed combination obvious (Answer 8). We agree with the Examiner.
As we found supra, Ohno discloses convex surfaces on the end portions of
the inner surfaces of the handles adjacent their free ends. Bond recognizes a need
in the art for providing indicia on tools to visually indicate to the user the head type
of a tool and Bond, thus, discloses applying indicia on a blunt end of either handle
of a pair of pliers so that the indicia is facing upwards and is thus easily visible
when the pliers are stored in a tool belt. Bond provides a clear incentive or
motivation for one skilled in the art to modify Ohno to add indicia on its ends to
visually indicate to the user the head type of the tool. It does not matter that the
problem being solved by the resulting prior art combination is different from the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013