Appeal No. 2001-1473
Application 08/946,736
Christian’s grinding wheel assembly might not be as accessible as
Wiand’s due to its location within a housing, it is not evident
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would view this as
negating the quick connect/disconnect advantage noted by the
examiner.
Hence, the combined teachings of Christian and Wiand
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in claim 29.
As for the appellant’s evidence of non-obviousness, the
Bernard I declaration, advanced by the appellant to traverse the
rejection of claim 15 (see pages 8 through 12 in the brief),
deals with the issue of whether it would have been obvious to
incorporate a high speed motor into the Christian sharpener.
This issue is not relevant to claim 29, which does not require
the drill sharpener recited therein to have a high speed motor.
The Bernard II declaration, proffered by the appellant to
demonstrate commercial success of the claimed invention (see
pages 18 through 20 in the brief), pertains to a so-called “Drill
Doctor” drill sharpener. The declaration attributes the monetary
and unit sales data asserted therein to the compactness, low
price and performance afforded by the Drill Doctor’s (1) small
diameter grinding wheel, (2) motor operating at a speed on the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007