Ex parte STEVENS - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2001-0339                                                                 Page 3                 
              Application No. 09/250,583                                                                                  


                                                       OPINION                                                            
              In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                         
              appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                       
              respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of                    
              our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                        
              The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have                         
              suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,               
              425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of                                  
              obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary                      
              skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference                
              teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973                        
              (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some                     
              teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge                         
              generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.            
              See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d                       
              1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).                                                  
              As manifested in independent claim 1, the appellant’s invention comprises a mat made                        
              solely of textile material so as to be conformable under gravitational forces to the lip of a               
              household bathtub and so as to be machine washable, a plurality of suction cups disposed                    









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007