Appeal No. 2003-0628
Application No. 09/860,493 Page 5
as an option with a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding
similar knee hazards or limitations of knee positioning in a golf
cart construction. Thus, we are in agreement with the examiner
that the applied prior art would have rendered the appealed
claims prima facie obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Nor do we find appellants arguments persuasive for reasons
stated by the examiner in the answer. Appellants maintain that
Bonito and Dillon are not concerned with providing shade for the
display monitor as taught by appellants. However, in reaching
the conclusion that the herein claimed subject matter is prima
facie obvious over the teachings of the applied references, we
also note that the prior art references in question need not
provide all of appellants* reasons, such as an alleged increase
in shade for the display monitor, to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the motivation to combine features
need not be identical to that of appellant to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness). Furthermore, to the extent
appellants may have recognized another potential advantage of the
claimed monitor location that would have arisen by otherwise
following the teachings of the prior art, that recognition does
not necessarily form a basis for patentability. See In re
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007