Appeal No. 2004-0350
Application No. 09/570,507
thereto). It is well settled that, generally speaking, it would
have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop
workable or even optimum values for such result-effective
parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934,
1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ
215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235 (CCPA 1955). We conclude, therefore, that it would have been
obvious for the artisan to provide the Kraushaar apparatus, as
modified above, with workable values for the parameter under
consideration including those wherein the horizontal rungs are each
individually twice the length of the respective vertical struts as
required by claim 14.
In light of the foregoing, it is our ultimate determination
that the Kraushaar and Hailer references establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to independent claims 1, 10 and 14
which the Appellant has failed to successfully rebut with argument
and/or evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As a
consequence, we hereby sustain the section 103 rejection of claims
1-3, 5-11 and 14 as being obvious over Kraushaar in view of Hailer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007