Appeal No. 2001-0484 Page 10
Application No. 09/116,409
The examiner's position (answer, page 5) is that "[i]t
would have been obvious that one of the wires 17 in figure 4
of Saito could have been a resistance heating element like
cable 14 of Anttonen or rod 13 of Huber to prevent or remove
ice from the conveyor."
The appellants' position (brief, pages 5-7) is that the
applied prior art lacks any suggestion or motivation to
combine the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter
absent the use of impermissible hindsight. We agree.
Teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so. Here, it is our view that
the applied prior art contains none. In fact, the advantage
of utilizing a heating cable disposed within a handrail guide
associated with a handrail of an escalator to prevent freezing
of the handrail is not appreciated by the prior art applied by
the examiner. Instead, it appears to us that the examiner
relied on impermissible hindsight in reaching his obviousness
determination.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007