Appeal No. 2004-1108
Application 09/756,833
966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On this basis, we have carefully
considered appellant’s arguments that there is no motivation to combine the identified features of
each of the references with respect to a backpack that accommodates a scooter. We reiterate
again here that appellant has not established that the backpack of Rota, which has all of the
structural components required by appealed claim 1, would not receive, contain and retain a a
conventionally available, foldable two-wheeled scooter such that the scooter does not fall out of
the backpack when the backpack is reasonably carried as further required by the claim. Thus,
because Rota is applied in all of the grounds of rejection under § 103(a) for such teachings, the
issues are whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have modified the backpack of Rota
with the feature shown in the backpacks described in each of McDermott, Kearl, Mott and
Cannaday, and whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have used the backpack of Rota as
the bag of Ogami to carry the scooter of Ogami. In these respects, appellant has not supported
her conclusion that a particular modification of the backpack of Rota by a feature shown in the
backpack of McDermott, Kearl, Mott or Cannaday could not be included in a backpack for
transporting a conventionally available, foldable two-wheeled scooter, with reasons why this
would be so for each modification. Indeed, unsupported allegations are entitled to little, if any,
weight. See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). We find with respect to Ogami that
appellant has not addressed the combination of this reference with Rota with specificity, as only
the teachings of Ogami are described (brief, pages 11 and 13).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Rota alone and as combined with other
references with appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and
conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 2 through 18 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007