Appeal 2007-1096
Application 10/872,181
Obviousness in view of Nelson and Pflueger
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Nelson in view of Pflueger. The Examiner asserts that
Nelson does not disclose a stiffening member of a mesh-like
material or that is configured to conform to a shape of the
predetermined portion. Pflueger . . . disclose an apparatus for
treating snoring comprising a stiffening member of a mesh-like
material (Figure 10) that is configured to conform to a shape of
the predetermined portion (paragraph 107). It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have provided the anti-snoring apparatus
disclosed by Nelson wherein the stiffening member is of a
mesh-like material and can conform to a shape of the
predetermined portion, as taught by Pflueger, to provide
flexibility and comfort to the user.
(Answer 4-5.)
Appellants contend that the “structure and method of the invention”
differ “materially from the structure and method disclosed” in the cited
references (Br. 13).
The Examiner bears the initial burden of showing unpatentability.
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A prima facie case of obviousness requires evidence that those skilled in the
art would have been motivated to combine the prior art and that there would
have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See In re Vaeck,
947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, we find
that the Examiner has provided cogent reasoning for combining the cited
references. Appellants argue that the rejection is improper, but fail to
identify a specific defect in the Examiner’s case. Since we find none, we
affirm the rejection of claims 2 and 4.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013