Appeal 2006-3240
Application 10/316,436
as argued by the appellants, Russell discloses a two-part hanger composed of bars
(10 and 11), which are adjustable so as to increase or decrease the length of the
shank. Russell, page 1, lines 44-46. We also agree with the appellants that Russell
does not teach a first cable support member attached to the bar (10), and we find
that the bar (11) of Russell is not configured to accommodate a plurality of cable
support members. Rather, Russell discloses that only a single pipe-supporting
collar (B) is secured to the lower end of the bar (11). Russell, page 1, lines 92-93.
As for the level of skill in the art, neither the examiner nor the appellants
explicitly address this factor. In any event, the person of ordinary skill in the art is
presumed to know the relevant prior art, including the teachings of Meyer and
Russell. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962,
1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, we consider the content of the
prior art relied upon by examiner as the principal evidence of what the skilled
hypothetical person would know.
We must now determine, bearing in mind the differences between the prior
art and the claimed invention, whether a person having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made, possessed with the understandings and
knowledge reflected in the prior art as a whole, and motivated by the general
problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination as
claimed. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The examiner found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided additional chaining
plates, as taught by Russell, similar to the plate (50) on the cable support of Meyer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007