Appeal No. 2005-2404
Application No. 10/119,283
combined teachings of the references would have fairly suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Wood, 599 F.2d
1032, 1036-37, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979); In re Van Beckum,
438 F.2d 1001, 1005, 169 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1971); In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549-50 (CCPA 1969); In re
Cochran, 374 F.2d 1017, 1023, 153 USPQ 195, 201 (CCPA 1967).
Nowacki’s disclosure that, compared to a single large hole or
bore of substantially equal area, a plurality of small bores
provides 1) less restriction to flow and, therefore, a stronger
signal, 2) better control of air flow without molecules of air
collecting in the flow path, and 3) less tumbling of air (col. 3,
lines 53-62), would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the use of a plurality of small holes instead
of the Kleven ‘297 single large hole to obtain those benefits.
The appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art,
in combining the references, would not have had a reasonable
expectation of success when seeking to average pressures produced
by a non-symmetrical fluid profile (brief, pages 9-10; rely
brief, pages 7-8). This argument is not well taken because to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, references need not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007