Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
angle to the shaft. Accordingly, each claim limitation is taught by the prior
art.
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
[the] subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill in the
art can implement a predictable variation, and would likely see the benefits
of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at
1396. Moreover, “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 that person’s skill.” Id.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the prior art
references, stating (Br., p. 7):
At best the prior art suggests two separate ways of moving an
implement that is attached to a shaft of a weed trimmer. The prior art
does not teach or contemplate having two different adjusting means
associated with a single weed trimming device. The only way based
on the teachings of the prior art, to arrive at the claimed invention, is
to use the claim as a frame, taking individual, naked parts of separate
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013