Appeal 2007-1112
Application 10/692,116
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396,. Therefore, “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
“If there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1727, 82 USPQ2d at 1386.
We have considered only those arguments made before us in coming
to our decision. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)
(1) (vii) (2004).
V. Analysis
Haldenby and Seal
Claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 14-16 are rejected over the combination of
Haldenby and Seal.
Caudill acknowledges that metal cylinders overwrapped with
composite materials and plastic cylinders overwrapped with composite
materials were known in the art. (FF1 3). Caudill further acknowledges that
lining metal cylinders with plastic linings was known in the art. (FF 4).
However, according to Caudill “there has not been a need to combine these
two technologies” since the composite/aluminum cylinders and the
1 Finding of fact.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013