Ex Parte Kaesgen et al - Page 4




               Appeal No. 2004-2193                                                                          Page 4                   
               Application No. 09/737,781                                                                                             


                       Independent claim 5 stands rejected as being obvious1 in view of the combined                                  
               teachings of Busboom and Kobayashi.  In arriving at this conclusion, the examiner finds                                
               all of the subject matter recited in claim 5 to be disclosed or taught by Busboom, except                              
               for positioning the air filter intake so it is oriented downwardly.  However, the examiner                             
               is of the view that it would have been obvious to modify Busboom in this manner in view                                
               of the teachings of Kobayashi “in order to prevent particles from getting into the engine                              
               air system.” (See Answer, page 3).  The appellants argue that Kobayashi is not                                         
               analogous art and therefore is improperly applied in the rejection, and that even if it is                             
               considered to be analogous art, there exists no suggestion to combine the references in                                
               the manner proposed by the examiner.                                                                                   
                       Busboom discloses a riding lawn mower of the type having a water cooled                                        
               engine.  The problem to which Busboom’s invention is directed is preventing the engine                                 
               radiator from becoming clogged by debris carried by the air drawn therethrough.  To                                    





                       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 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 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, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,              
               488 U.S. 825 (1988).                                                                                                   







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007