Appeal No. 2005-0263
Application No. 10/314,766
492 F.2d 843, 847, 191 USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA 1974)(a drawing is
available as a reference for all that it teaches a person of
ordinary skill in the art). Moreover, it is appropriate to
regard the aforementioned absence of an express core size
teaching in these references as supporting an obviousness
conclusion. This is because this absence of express teaching
evinces that the determination of suitable core sizes would have
been within the capabilities of those with ordinary skill in this
art.
In this last mentioned regard, the appellant argues that the
applied references contain no suggestion of core sizes within the
here claimed range because his claimed invention is directed to
problems and characteristics which are different from those of
the applied prior art. We cannot agree for a number of reasons.
First, this argument is contrary to the above discussed drawing
disclosure of Allen. Additionally, we are unpersuaded by the
appellant’s argument because we disagree with the proposition on
which it is based. That is, we do not agree with the appellant’s
position that the here claimed soap bar element involves problems
and characteristics which are incompatible with the soap bar
elements of the applied prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007