Appeal No. 2001-2329 Page 4
Application No. 09/252,761
by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In the rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner determined (final rejection,
pp. 2-4) that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have provided the cab of Wilderman with (1) a second console
located within the cab in view of the teachings of Brown, and (2) a swivel chair in view of
the teachings of Dunn. Even if these modifications were made to the cab of Wilderman,
such changes to Wilderman would not have arrived at the claimed invention for the reasons
that follow.
First, claims 5 and 8 to 11 include the limitation that the cab includes a wall having a
glass panel. However, none of the applied prior art discloses a cab having a wall with a
glass panel. The examiner stated in the final rejection (p. 4) that Wilderman "includes a
wall having a glass panel." The examiner further stated in the answer (pp. 5, 6 and 8) that
the cab 32 of Wilderman has glass panels (windows) on all sides. We have reviewed the
entire disclosure of Wilderman and fail to find any support for the examiner's position that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007