Appeal No. 2004-1263
Application No. 09/683,029
well as the material and contour of the underlying substrate.
Hence, variation of the shape of the base is suggested by
Fernandes.
We note that obviousness can be established by
combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce
the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggesting,
or motivation to do so found either in the reference or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Here, Powers’ frame 12 does not include openings,
as discussed above. At least part of the frame of Powers is
tiled (see Fig. 4). Fernandez does teach the benefits of
utilizing a base having openings for installing tile; hence, the
suggestion to modify the frame of Power by including openings in
the frame for improved attachment of tile is found in the
reference of Fernandez. Therefore, a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established. Id.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007