Appeal No. 96-3745
Application 08/269,916
Applying the test for obviousness, we conclude that it7
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art, from a combined assessment of the applied prior art, to
provide a known ridge vent with flapper valves. It is clear
to this panel of the board that the incentive on the part of
one having ordinary skill in the art for making this
modification would have simply been to gain the expected
benefit of same, i.e., the well known benefit of preventing
the entry of water under higher than normal wind conditions.
For these reasons, we determine that claims 1 and 12 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The argument presented by appellant does not persuade us
that the content of claims 1 and 12 is patentable. The
circum-stance that the Garries patent (main brief, pages 5 and
6) is viewed as being addressed to a different type of vent
device makes it quite apparent to us that appellant failed to
recognize
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references7
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007