Appeal 2007-2867
Application 10/816,664
Turning first to claim 1, the issue on appeal arising from the
contentions of the Appellant and the Examiner is: Would it have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the high pressure washer apparatus
construction art to have mounted a high pressure pump and engine on the
chassis of Poppitz’s high pressure washer? For the following reasons, we
answer that question in the affirmative.
Poppitz describes a high pressure washer that dispenses a water-based
cleaning solution onto a surface to clean that surface. Poppitz discloses the
use of a pump or other pressure source to deliver the water, but the location
of the pump is not shown (col. 2, ll. 36-39). Nor does Poppitz discuss how
the pump is powered.
Appellant contends that Poppitz does not describe or suggest
mounting the pump on the chassis, and “[w]hile it is true that a pump
requires some kind of engine to power it, Poppitz does not supply the
teaching of how the pump would be powered or mounted with an engine on
a chassis.” (Second Reply Br. 12.)
We cannot agree with Appellant that the fact that Poppitz itself does
not supply the suggestion means there is insufficient evidence to support the
rejection. In an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the
artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226
USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We do not read Poppitz in a vacuum, but
with the understanding of those of ordinary skill in the high pressure washer
apparatus art.
Appellant’s own Specification provides evidence with regard to the
knowledge possessed by those of ordinary skill in the pressure washer art.
As described in Appellant’s Specification, high pressure washers with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013