Appeal No. 2004-2238
Application No. 09/878,743
59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings
on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the
prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not
shown.’”). Appellants have not said what they consider to be the level of
skill in the art, how such would be determined to their satisfaction, or how a
different level of skill would affect the outcome. Appellants also have not
refuted the teachings of Elder that a conventional casket lid comprise a
crown, a pie, rim members, and a header. As stated above, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a
conventionally shaped unitary casket lid could have included a crown,
a pie, rim members, and a header.
Appellants also argue that the passage of nearly 80 years from the
time of the Edwards invention and Appellants’ invention suggests non-
obviousness. (Reply Brief, p. 2). This argument is not found to be
persuasive. Obviousness is determined at the time the invention was
made. One skilled in the art looking at the art as a whole at the time
Appellants’ invention was made would have considered all available prior
art.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007