Appeal No. 1999-0278 Page 5
Application No. 08/604,026
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
It is our opinion that even if the teachings of Dowd and
Okamoto were combined, one skilled in the art would not have
arrived at the claimed invention. In that regard, it is our
view that Okamoto's teachings would have suggested modifying
Dowd's vehicle only by the addition of speakers beneath Dowd's
headliner 12 by the inside panel of the vehicle as set forth
in Okamoto (column 1, lines 59-63, and column 2, lines 50-55).
Accordingly, all the limitations of the appealed claims are
not suggested from the applied prior art (e.g., speakers in
speaker openings formed/extending through the headliner, and
the recited "speaker support bar"). Thus, we agree with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007