Ex Parte Williams et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2004-1666                                                                  Page 4                
              Application No. 09/586,912                                                                                  


                     The examiner has rejected this claim as being obvious1 in view of the combined                       
              teachings of Grannis, Isgur and the admitted prior art.  In arriving at this conclusion, the                
              examiner has found all of the subject matter recited in the claim to be disclosed or                        
              taught by Grannis, except for the particular pedestal boxes and the type of sealant                         
              specified.  As to the first of the missing limitations, it is the examiner’s view that the                  
              switchgear recited by Grannis “would encompass” those named in the claim.  With                             
              regard to the sealant, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to                   
              modify the Grannis system by replacing the disclosed sealing means with a sealant of                        
              the type disclosed by Isgur “since merely the substitution of one plastic part for another                  
              is contemplated,” and to utilize the specified types of insecticides since, as evidenced                    
              by the admitted prior art, they were known at the time of the appellants’ invention and                     
              solve no stated problem.  See Paper No. 21, pages 3 and 4.  We do not agree, on the                         
              basis of the reasoning that follows.                                                                        


                     1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to    
              one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881     
              (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent       
              upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a  
              prior art reference or to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  Ex parte Clapp,  
              227 USPQ 972, 973 (BPAI 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,         
              suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of     
              ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin
              Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).       










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007