Appeal 2006-2888
Application 10/318,425
1 the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966
2 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re
3 Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
4 Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). Common
5 sense is used to decide which fields a person of ordinary skill in the art
6 would reasonably expected to look for a solution to the problem. In re
7 Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ 1329, 1332 (Fed, Cir. 2006).
8 Moreover, in making determinations of obviousness, courts and patent
9 examiners are cautioned not to look only to the problem Appellant was
10 trying to solve. The problem motivating Appellant may be only one of
11 many addressed by the claimed subject matter. The question is not whether
12 the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether the combination was
13 obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis,
14 any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
15 and addressed by the claim can provide a reason for combining the elements
16 in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,
17 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)
18
19 DISCUSSION
20 Anticipation rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 11-13, 16 and 18
21 We will sustain this rejection because claim 1 is broad enough to
22 include a device, as is disclosed in Tolman, in which the rungs are secured to
23 the side rails by the slots themselves. In this regard, claim 1 requires only
24 that the rungs are captured between the side rails when the connecting
25 members connect the side rails and that there are no other securing means to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013