Appeal 2006-3045
Application 10/141,153
reason why one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the
prior art references as a whole or knowledge generally available to one
having ordinary skill in the art. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great lakes
Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir.
1996); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima face case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
VII. ANALYSIS
Here, in spite of the Appellants’ arguments at pages 4 through 6 of the
Brief, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the prior art references relied
upon disclose at least one agitator half-section disposed in each of at least
two agitator chambers (artificially or naturally two enclosed spaces). (See
the Answer in its entirety). It is apparent from Figures 2-4 of Agar, for
example, casing 8 does not extend to two opposite walls to form at least two
agitator chambers. The Examiner also has not supplied any explanation why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to provide
such agitator chambers in the waxing or polishing apparatus of Agar. (See
the Answer in its entirety). Thus, based on this record, we are constrained to
agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. As such, we reverse the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013