Appeal 2006-2744
Application 09/664,794
Patent 5,584,962
disclosure. This finding is supported by the fact that Matsuo (like
Appellants) does not disclose any non-manual mechanism for moving the
upper frame to an opened position. For these reasons, as well as the reasons
discussed previously with respect to claim 36, it appears that the Figs. 11-12
and 17-18 disclosures of Matsuo anticipatorily satisfy the limitations of
method claim 47.
Alternatively, it appears that claim 47 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the aforementioned disclosures of Matsuo. Although Matsuo
(like Appellants) does not expressly disclose opening the upper frame by
manual engagement, Matsuo discloses manual operations for other aspects
of Figs. 11-12 (col. 11, ll. 47-54) and Figs. 17-18 (col. 2, ll. 31-36). These
disclosures of manual operations create an inference that the upper frame of
Figs. 11-12 or Figs. 17-18 is moved to an opened position by manual
engagement, and this inference is reinforced by the previously mentioned
fact that the Matsuo reference contains no disclosure of a non-manual
mechanism for moving the upper frame to an opened position. In this
regard, we point out that an analysis under § 103 need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, in light of the inferences derived from Matsuo, it appears that
one with ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious to move the
upper frame of Figs. 11-12 or Figs. 17-18 to the opened position by manual
engagement as required by method claim 47.
24
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013