Appeal No. 1996-1891
Application 08/058,478
The examiner's position (Answer at 5) is that
it would have been obvious . . . to apply
Taddeo's teaching of damping material near
the vibratile surface to Bose's loudspeaker
system to perform no more than its intended
function[,] which is to absorb unwanted
higher frequency sounds, and to attenuate
the lower frequency sounds to a much lower
degree (see column 1, lines 51-52 and 54-56
of Taddeo).
As explained in In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998),
[t]o reject claims in an application under
section 103, an examiner must show an unrebutted
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel,
51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir.
1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case
of obviousness, an applicant who complies with the
other statutory requirements is entitled to a
patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to
the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. See id.
Appellant does not dispute the obviousness of using Taddeo's
damping material 20, i.e., mohair, in Bose's waveguide or deny
that mohair will absorb unwanted higher frequency sound and
attenuate lower frequencies to a much lower degree. Instead,
appellant argues (Opening brief at 7) that Taddeo
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007