Appeal No. 2004-1439 Page 6
Application No. 10/044,142
Examiner. Appellant argues that the Examiner has identified no reason or motivation for
modifying the Ivanovich structure to include a single panel (Brief, p. 11). But the reason or
motivation is expressly articulated in Price. Price describes a collapsible tent with a separate
loop and panel for the base. The tent is described as an improvement over the continuous
loop tents such as those of Ivanovich (Price, col. 1, l. 24 to col. 2, l. 6). Price expressly
articulates reasons for forming the base using a separate loop, rather than forming the entire
tent from a continuous loop: To reduce manufacturing cost and to allow the inclusion of
loops of different materials and diameters (Price, col. 2, ll. 2-26). There is ample motivation
within the prior art for making the combination.
Appellant also argues that Ivanovich teaches away from the modification suggested
by the Examiner (Brief, p. 12). The problem with this argument is that Ivanovich does not
indicate that the multiple loop configuration will not work and Price expressly discloses the
tent configuration described therein as an improvement over the configuration of Ivanovich.
Price expressly leads one of ordinary skill in the art to the modification.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no arguments upon objective evidence
of non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 28
which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007