Appeal No. 2007-0886
Application 09/914,181
20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also, KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (“[A]ny
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.”). Thus the burden was properly shifted to Appellants
to come forward with appropriate evidence or argument in rebuttal.
Appellants have neither offered evidence of unexpected results nor have
they provided any facts or reasons which indicate one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been discouraged from combining the references in the
manner proposed by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie
showing of obviousness of the claimed invention which Appellants have
failed to overcome.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over EP ‘174 in view of EP ‘803 and Newsam and optionally
further taken with any one of Hom, Whitemore, or Beggs is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Adee in view of Daunt, EP ‘803, and EP ‘174 and
optionally further taken with any one of Hom, Whitemore, or Beggs is
affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013