Appeal No. 2006-0954
Application No. 10/316,444
stated that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective
variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the
art.” The statement by the court in Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105
USPQ at 235, relied upon by the examiner (answer, page 4) is that
“where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Buckley’s figure 1 merely shows Buckley’s master cylinder
mounted on a handlebar. Neither that figure nor the remainder of
Buckley (nor Cheever) discloses that the relation between the
pivotable connection and the clamp axis is a result effective
variable, let alone a result effective variable with respect to
actuation chord angle or uniformity of mechanical advantage. Nor
does that figure disclose “general conditions” as argued by the
examiner. Thus, the examiner has not established that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led by Buckley and
Cheever to obtain the appellant’s claimed invention by routine
optimization.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention claimed in the appellant’s claims 1-17 and 19.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007