Appeal No. 2005-2724
Application No. 10/236,005
The claimed invention does not limit the space consumed by the power
supply component. Thus, Appellants’ arguments, Brief pages 9-10, regarding
the space allocated to the power supply component are not persuasive.
Appellants argue that, because the Examiner has not addressed on the
record the level of skill in the art, the § 103 rejection is premised on hindsight.
(Brief, p. 11). “While it is always preferable for the fact finder below to specify
the level of skill it has found to apply to the invention at issue, the 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.’” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355,
59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001), (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appellants have not explained, and it is not apparent, why the applied prior art
in the present record does not reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art.
Appellants argue, “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in the art, nor is
there a showing that someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention
recognized the problems addressed by the present invention.” (Brief, p. 10).
This argument is not persuasive because Hershey discloses a device that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007