Appeal 2007-1934
Application 09/993,443
1 mechanical expedients” is completely unsupported by any evidence; (2) the
2 Examiner provided no evidence of a teaching, suggestion or motivation
3 (TSM) to make the combination; (3) the combination has been made based
4 on hindsight (Br. 10-12).
5 D. Principles of Law
6 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
7 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
8 skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
9 ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co.
10 of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
11 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
12 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
13 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
14 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR,
15 82 USPQ2d at 1389, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
16 E. Analysis
17 Applicant groups claims 11-13 together and groups 14-16 together for
18 argument purposes. However, with the exception of the opposing grain
19 feature of claim 14, Applicant’s arguments for both groups are the same.
20 Thus, we treat the two groups together, and separately address the opposing
21 wood grain argument.
22 At the outset, we note that Applicant exhausts much effort in
23 explaining why each individual reference alone fails to meet the claimed
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013