Appeal 2007-1917
Application 10/222,660
The Appellant further argues that the Examiner failed to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness because the Examiner relied on hindsight to combine
Sekiguchi and Boeniger (Appeal Br. 17). Under a functional approach, as
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in KSR, the addition of Sekiguchi’s mounting
posts to Boeniger’s display would entail merely the combination of familiar
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (Finding of Fact
10). See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In other words, the
addition of mounting posts is no more than a predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions (Finding of Fact 10). Id. at 1740, 82
USPQ2d at 1395. The Appellant has not argued that the modification of
Boeniger’s display system with mounting posts would have been beyond the skill
of one of ordinary skill in the art or would have led to unpredictable results. Id.
As such, the Examiner set forth a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 6
and 8.
The Appellant argued that claim 9 is patentable over Boeniger and
Sekiguchi because Boeniger does not disclose a first fastener member on a back of
a support structure, a second fastener member on a contact surface of the display
face, where the first and second fastener members connect with one another
(Appeal Br. 17). For the reasons provided supra, we find that Boeniger discloses a
first fastener member (frame element 1 having rail-like protrusion 5) on a face of a
support structure (frame 12), and a second fastener member (eye 8) on a contact
surface of the display face (reproduction 7) (Findings of Fact 1 and 3). We do not
see where claim 9 recites that the first and second fasteners members must be
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013