Appeal No. 2004-1439 Page 4
Application No. 10/044,142
between the claimed invention and the prior art, and any objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results, long-felt need, and commercial success. See
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “On the issue
of obviousness, the combined teachings of the prior art as a whole must be considered.”
EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985)(emphasis added).
Here, the evidence shows that collapsible structures such as those of Ivanovich were
known to come in all sorts of sizes for various purposes including tents, car shelters, boat
shelters, hot houses for plants, beach shelters, display booths, playpens, and animal pens
(Ivanovich, col. 3, ll. 23-44). Appellant’s specification provides further evidence of the
breadth and extent of this knowledge within the prior art and offers further examples of what
was known including smaller versions used as dollhouses and action figure play houses
(specification, p. 1, l. 18 to p. 2. 1. 3). Attaching the flotation devices suggested by
Ivanovich to a tent-type shelter such as that suggested by Ivanovich, Figure 1 for any of the
known purposes, including use with dolls in water play, would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to the inoperability argument (Brief, pp. 7-9), we note that in the
proposed combination, the flotation devices would serve the function described in
Ivanovich: To allow flotation. It would have been reasonably expected that a smaller tent-
type shelter would float given that Ivanovich discloses that a larger boat shelter will float.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007