Appeal 2007-2031
Application 10/905,818
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to replace the side rails of Heckman with the side walls of Pepper to prevent
a small child from falling through the side rails (Answer 6). Because this is a case
where the improvement is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions, no further analysis was required by the
Examiner. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Claims 20, 21, 24, and
26 were not argued separately, and fall with claim 17. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
B. Rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Heckman in view of Pepper and further in view of Faber.
The Examiner found that Heckman does not disclose the use of screw drive
motors to raise and lower the cover assembly (Answer 7). Faber supplies the
missing limitation (Finding of Fact 6).
Appellant argues that because Heckman teaches the advantages of using a
pneumatic lift to reduce the risk of releasing contaminating pollutants, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to replace the pneumatic lift of
Heckman with the screw drive motors of Faber (Br. 26). This argument is not
persuasive. Appellant provides no reason why a screw drive motor would be more
likely than a pneumatic lift to release contaminating pollutants and we find none.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to replace the
pneumatic actuators of Heckman with the screw drive motors of Faber using
methods known in the art at the time the invention was made. Moreover, each of
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013