Appeal 2006-2709
Application 10/254,295
skill in the relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
Here, the Examiner has furnished an explicit analysis, including
findings of fact, in accord with these principles, including a convincing line
of reasoning in support of a determination of a prima facie case of
obviousness in the Answer.
As for the argued claim 1 requirement for leaving wax in surface
pores and crevices, we note that Appellant acknowledges that it is well
known in the art that vehicle painted surfaces include pores/crevices
(Specification 5 and 22).1 Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that
using the wiper of Tomingas to dry the vehicle surface of Yeiser after
application of sprayed wax particles in a water carrier as a substitute for the
towel drying of Yeiser would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention from the combined teachings of the
references. Moreover, this modified method would have been expected to
result in applied wax particles being forced into the vehicle painted surface
crevices and pores. See Answer at pp. 5 and 6.
Appellant's argument that the combined teachings of the applied
references would not have suggested the use of a wiper blade instead of a
chamois for drying a surface having an aqueous sprayed on wax applied
thereto are effectively rebutted by the Examiner (Answer 8). In this regard,
1 1 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art, including prior art found in an
Applicant's Specification, may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention and that consideration of the prior art cited by the
Examiner may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in the
Specification. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571, 184 USPQ 607, 611-
612 (CCPA 1975); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258
(CCPA 1962).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013