Appeal No. 1999-2425
Application 08/659,380
its width with air vent holes (abstract). The examiner should
consider whether this disclosure of a preference for a
slightly convex bottom surface with air vent holes would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
surface which is not convex and which, therefore, does not
provide the benefits of a convex surface disclosed by Wentz.
See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653, 177 USPQ 399, 400 (CCPA
1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA
1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969) (References are not limited to their preferred
embodiments.); In re Wilson, 377 F.2d 1014, 1017, 153 USPQ
740, 742 (CCPA 1967); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 969, 144
USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1965); In re Brown, 228 F.2d 247, 249, 108
USPQ 232, 234 (CCPA 1955) (Prima facie obvious to eliminate a
feature along with its disclosed function). The examiner also
should consider whether Wentz’s teaching that the disclosed
kneeler differs from the prior art by having a convex bottom
(col. 1, lines 14-24) would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, a carpet seam-making kneeler having
a bottom which, instead of being convex and providing the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007