Appeal No. 2000-1410
Application No. 09/021,667
appellants' devices are all slide switches and are all used in
moving environments which may produce unwanted vibrations.
However, Suwa does not address the problem of unwanted vibrations
and, therefore, does not meet either condition for analogous art.
Further, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that there is
sufficient motivation for combining the references. In
particular, the examiner states that "it is well known that
switches in moving environments work better and more consistently
when there is structure present to secure the actuator and the
contacts in the selected position. Suwa is an example of a well
known structure, a beam with projections, that achieve such a
result." Suwa, however, does not address the problem of securing
the actuator and the contacts and, thus, fails to provide the
necessary teaching or suggestion to use any disclosed structure
in the device of Tomotoshi.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to provide a reason why one having ordinary
skill in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the
prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must
stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior
art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley , 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007