Appeal 2006-1708
Application 10/186,253
1 p >4r.
2
3 PRIOR ART
4 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal
5 is:
6 Beamer US. 5,787,972 Aug. 4, 1998
7 Haussmann US. 6,161,616 Dec. 19, 2000
8 Yamamoto US. 5,271,458 Dec. 21, 1993
9
10 The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
11 unpatentable over Beamer in view of Haussmann, and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
12 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamamoto.
13
14 ISSUES
15 There are three issues on appeal. First, whether the Appellants have shown
16 that the Examiner has failed to provide adequate reason to combine the teachings
17 of Beamer and Haussmann. Second, if the Examiner has provided adequate reason
18 to combine the teachings of Beamer and Haussmann, whether the Appellants
19 established, by evidence, unexpected results, or commercial success. Lastly,
20 whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner failed to prove that
21 Yamamoto discloses fin walls having a V-shape.
22
23 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
24 In establishing a case of obviousness, it can be important to identify a reason
25 that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to combine
26 the elements of the prior art references in the way the claimed invention has. KSR
27 Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013