Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 moment, as all of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
2 incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425,
3 208 USPQ at 881) and the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
4 teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
5 independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
6 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The decision of which
7 components of a modular system of the type disclosed by Kelley to
8 integrally mold together and which components to form separately for
9 attachment at installation is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
10 The rejection is sustained.
11 We also sustain the rejections of claims 12, 13 and 29 as being
12 unpatentable over Kelley in view of Brown and claims 24 and 30 as being
13 unpatentable over Kelley in view of Brown and Douhet as Appellants have
14 not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816
15 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
16
17 SUMMARY
18 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-22 and 24-35 is
19 affirmed as to claims 1, 4-22, 24-31 and 35 and reversed as to claims 32-34.
20 The application is remanded, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1), for
21 consideration of a rejection of claims 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
22 discussed above.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013