Appeal No. 1999-0032 Page 6
Application No. 08/525,407
persons located close by. The question then becomes whether
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
modify the Guibert device in such a fashion as to meet this
limitation of the claim. From our perspective, the answer must
be in the negative. It is axiomatic that the mere fact that
the prior art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. See, for example, In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Since
Guibert has evidenced no concern for the problem of minimizing
the noise made by the airstream heater, and in the absence of
other reason expressed by the examiner for the artisan to make
such a modification, we fail to perceive any teaching,
suggestion or incentive which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to do so. This being the case, a prima facie
case of obviousness has not been established with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 20, and we will not sustain the
rejection.
Independent claim 21 also stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Guibert. This claim requires that the outlet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007