Appeal 2007-1204
Application 10/370,869
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 and
45-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Engibarov in view of Wharton.
ISSUE
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-32 and 45-57
using Engibarov and Wharton as applied under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because there is
no motivation to combine their teachings (Br. 14). The Appellants further contend
that even when combined, the prior art fails to teach or suggest all of the claimed
elements (Br. 16). The Examiner, however, held it would have been obvious to
one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the tooling apparatuses of Engibarov
and Wharton to result in the claimed combination.
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner has
erred in combining the teachings of Engibarov and Wharton such that it would
have led one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the
claimed combination.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
Engibarov discloses a tooling apparatus for performing a metalworking operation
on a workpiece (Engibarov, col. 1, ll. 5-7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013