Appeal No. 2006-1134
Application No. 10/002,438
problem to be solved. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great
Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996). Therefore, motivation or suggestion is not
merely what the references disclose, but whether a person of
ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and
knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the
general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make
the combination recited in the claims. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 989, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Therefore, we remain unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that any error in the Examiner’s determination, based on the
overall disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art,
and the level of skill in the art, regarding the obviousness of
the claimed subject matter has occurred. Accordingly, as the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, as well as claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 24, argued
as one group to fall with claim 1, over Brisebois and
Littlefield.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007