Appeal No. 2003-1358
Application No. 09/963,910
Nostrand (Fig. 1) teaches an upper mirror 4 and a lower mirror 3,
and a pivotal connection means (pivot point adjustment screws 15,
16, and 17; column 3, lines 33 through 44), as set forth in claim
1.
Obviousness
We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Van Nostrand in view of do Espirito
Santo.
In applying the test for obviousness,2 we reach the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art, from a combined consideration of the applied
patents, to replace the mirror adjustment screws (15, 16, 17 and
12, 13, 14) for each of the mirrors (3, 4) of Van Nostrand (Fig.
1 through 3) with a drive motor adjustment arrangement. From our
perspective, one having ordinary skill in the art would have
2 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007