Ex Parte Scott - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2005-0254                                                          Page 4              
             Application No. 10/197,012                                                                        



                   In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal (answer, pp. 3-4),          
             the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of Murison; (2) ascertained that               
             "Murison discloses the claimed invention except for having an additional tubular core             
             member 54 on the cylindrical member 56; and (3) concluded that:                                   
                   It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the          
                   invention was made to make the tubular core member 54 integral with the                     
                   cylindrical member 56, thus resulting in an "integral, one-piece spool'', to simplify       
                   the spool and have fewer parts, since it has been held that forming in one piece            
                   an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together                    
                   involves only routine skill in the art.  Howard v. Detroit Stove Works,                     
                   150 U.S. 164 (1893).                                                                        


                   The examiner has incorrectly drawn from the above-noted case law, which                     
             turned on specific facts, a general obviousness rule: namely, that forming several                
             pieces integrally as a one-piece structure would have been obvious at the time the                
             invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.  No such per se rule exists.3        

                   3 In Howard the Supreme Court stated (150 U.S. at 169-70) that                              
                   the Monumental grate, which was in public use five years before application was             
                   made for the patent under consideration, contains all of the elements of the                
                   Beckwith grate, except that, being adapted for burning coal, it is cast in two              
                   pieces, while the Beckwith grate is cast in one piece. This does not involve                
                   patentable invention.                                                                       
                          . . .  As to the third patent, it is void because the claims in it were clearly      
                   anticipated, and because it involves no invention to cast in one piece an article           
                   which has formerly been cast in two pieces, and put together.                               
             In Howard, prior art other than the Monumental grate taught casting the grate in one              
             piece; thus, providing evidence as to why it would have been obvious at the time                  
                                                                                     (continued...)            







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007