Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
with moving the entire fusible element outside the wheel rim, but, rather,
locating the fusible element outside the air passage through which the tire air
is vented (Appeal Br. 5). Appellants further argue that Stanton in fact
teaches against the modification by requiring good heat transfer between the
rim and the fuse (Appeal Br. 5). Thus, the next issue before us is whether
Stanton and Harvey are sufficient to establish that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanton by placing the
entire packing 42 outside of the wheel rim 22 structure. As part of this
inquiry, we must address whether Stanton's expressed concern with good
heat transfer contact between the rim 22 and the stem 30 teaches away from
the proposed modification.
While there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, “the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can 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
(2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013