Ex Parte Webster et al - Page 8

              Appeal Number:  2006-0965                                                                                 
              Application Number: 10/827,051                                                                            

              stated in the references. The test for an implicit showing is what the combined                           
              teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the                           
              problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in                        
              the art. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)                             
              citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See                            
              also In re Thrift, 298 F. 3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).                           
              These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden                         
              of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,                       
              1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden                            
              then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or                        
              evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole                          
              and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d                         
              1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,                            
              1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,                              
              1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).                                                                      
                     The examiner's position (Answer p. 4) is that Yates shows a clamping device                        
              having a plurality of stop blocks that are configured to be interchangeably                               
              interposed between the back member of the workpiece, as described in p. 1, line                           
              100 through p. 2, line 4 of Yates.  The examiner states that Yates lacks opposing                         
              side members coupled to the front and back member that would define a channel                             
              therebetween.  To overcome this deficiency of Yates, the examiner turns to                                
              Buchler for a teaching of a clamping device having front, back, and opposing side                         
              members, as well as interchangeable stop blocks 1.3, as illustrated in figures 3 and                      
              4.                                                                                                        
                     Appellants assert (Brief pp. 10-11) that the examiner has misapplied the                           
              references, and that the references teach away from each other as well as from the                        

                                                           8                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013