Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation
may be implicit from the prior art as a whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336; cited with approval in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Kawate
discloses terminal plates (i.e., radiator sheets) 26,28 which include
projections that are alternately bent up and down (Fig. 2) or the Examiner’s
finding that each of Jackson and Uchida teaches that a bending operation is
facilitated by use of a bend line (Jackson, Figs. 1-2) or V-shaped groove
(Uchida, Figs. 3-4). Instead, it is the Appellant’s basic position that, because
Kawate’s projections are alternately bent up and down, the provision of bend
lines or V-shaped grooves would result in “a difficult and expensive
complication to the manufacturing process” and therefore “one of skill in the
art would not be motivated to combine these references, but rather would
have a strong disincentive to combine them” (Br. 11).
This position is not well taken. There is no evidence in this record
that an artisan would have considered the advantages taught by Jackson and
Uchida to be outweighed by the difficulty and expense of providing Kawate
with Jackson’s bend lines or Uchida’s V-shaped grooves. Regardless, the
possibility that the Examiner’s proposed combination would not have been
made by businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons
skilled in the art would not have made this combination. In re Farenkopf,
713 F.2d 714, 718, 219 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, obviousness is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013