Appeal No. 2002-1549 Page 6
Application No. 09/315,101
has argued, the claim language does not read on the Grover structure for the following
two reasons. First, even giving the examiner’s position its most charitable
interpretation, neither of the legs of the Grover table can be adjusted by altering the
length of a single adjuster 70 because, to assemble the table in its operating position,
all four adjusters must be tightened (Figures 1 and 2), and the position of all four must
be altered (two loosened and two tightened) in order to change the angle between
either leg and the table top. Thus, the operation of “an adjuster” cannot adjust the
angle of “each” leg, as is required by claim 1. Second, the adjustment of the four
Grover adjusters necessarily results in the angle between both of the legs and the table
top simultaneously being changed, so that each leg is not “independently” adjustable,
also as required by claim 1.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Dependent claims 6-9 stand rejected as being obvious in view of Grover. The
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp,
227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007