Ex Parte Carl et al - Page 18




              Appeal No. 2004-0323                                                               Page 18                 
              Application No. 09/716,045                                                                                 


                     With regard to this difference, in applying the test for obviousness,4 we reach the                 
              conclusion that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a                         
              person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kitchen's column of air to the bottom of the                
              vertical chamber via Larsen's apparatus for creating a vertically directed air flow having                 
              a generally even, uniform flow (i.e., nonturbulent flow, laminar flow).  The motivation for                
              this change is Larsen's teaching to avoid turbulent air flow and create the desired                        
              laminar flow by an arrangement allowing the motor and fan to be remotely placed from                       
              the user thereby also providing a much quieter environment than is provided in prior art                   
              vertical configurations.  Furthermore, Larsen's apparatus also allows for greater control                  
              over the air flow permitting a generally even, uniform flow to be generated.  Lastly, the                  
              horizontal lead-in section of Larsen avoids the problems associated with the extensive                     
              excavation required for the entirely vertically oriented tunnels of the prior art.                         


                     The appellants' arguments (brief, pp. 9-10; reply brief, pp. 2-3) regarding claims 1                
              and 4 are not persuasive for the reasons that follow.  First, the applied prior art, not the               
              use of impermissible hindsight5, is suggestive of the claimed subject matter as set forth                  

                     4 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the 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 The use of hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure to support an          
              obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is impermissible.  See, for example, W. L. Gore and            
              Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,  
              469 U.S. 851 (1984).                                                                                       
                                                                                               (continued...)            






Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007