Appeal No. 2005-1982 4
Application No. 10/155,006
intended purpose of allowing the conveyance of the mat through the dryer. See In re
Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA 1975)(There being no novel or
unexpected result, placement of an electrical contact in a battery found to be an
obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art); In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309,
314, 144 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1965)(concluding that minor differences between the
prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the
contrary).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion is unsubstantiated because the
Examiner does not rely upon a teaching combinable with the disclosure of Foote (Brief,
p. 2). Appellant also argues that the vertical orientation of Foote has a disadvantage
over the claimed horizontal orientation because the vertical orientation of Foote allows
water that is squeezed from the mat by the rollers to be reabsorbed by the mat because
the water and the mat travel in the same direction. According to Appellant, this
disadvantage is not present in the claimed invention because water squeezed from the
mat falls downwardly as the mat travels horizontally (Brief, pp. 2-3).
We find the Appellant’s arguments insufficient for two reasons.
First, Appellant has not cited any objective evidence showing that, indeed, there
is an improvement in drying or that such a result would have been unexpected to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Kuhle and Rice indicate that the burden is on Appellant to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007