Ex Parte Sproatt et al - Page 3





                 Appeal No. 2002-2227                                                                                   Page 3                     
                 Application No. 09/522,545                                                                                                        



                         In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                           

                 the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                                         

                 respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence                                            

                 of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                                           

                         Claim 24 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Fukumoto in view of                                                   

                 Hamilton.  It is the examiner’s view that Fukumoto discloses all of the subject matter                                            

                 recited in the claim except for the requirement that “the controller causes the legs to                                           

                 retract to move the vehicle downwardly relative to the ground surface, until the                                                  

                 orientation of the vehicle reaches the reference level plane” (Paper No. 6, page 3).                                              

                 However, the examiner is of the view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have                                             

                 found it obvious2 to provide the Fukumoto controller with such a feature in view of the                                           

                 teachings of Hamilton, “in order to allow for faster and lower leveling of a vehicle”                                             

                 (Paper No. 6, page 3).  The appellants argue that the structure missing from Fukumoto                                             




                         2The 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 must stem from some teaching,                             
                 suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of                           
                 ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-                   
                 Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).                             











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007