Appeal 2007-0485
Application 10/457,876
may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the
prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.” DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361,
80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741,
82 USPQ2d at 1396 (As first applied by the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals, the suggestion test captured a helpful insight, helpful insights,
however, need not become rigid and mandatory formulas; and when it is so
applied, the suggestion test is incompatible with our precedents.).
Appellants present no arguments directed to the other subsidiary
obviousness rejections. We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of a reason, suggestion, or motivation to
modify the device of Khatchadourian so that the nozzles and dispensers
move relative to the plate rather than indexing the plates.
III. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to the reject claims 28, 30-34, and 43-51
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and claims 28, 30-34, and 38-51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
IV. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013