Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
ovoid springs” (id.). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill
would have considered it obvious “to use ovoid springs as such are well
known and the choice of a particular spring type is merely a design choice
based on environment, cost, assembly requirements, and availability as well
as desired spring characteristics like spring rate, durability and weight”
(id. at 2-3).
Appellants argue that “no motivation exists to substitute Buckley’s
ovoid coil spring for the elastomeric springs in the conveying apparatus of
Figure 4. In particular, the Examiner has not identified any prior art
reference which would suggest that ovoid coil springs and elastomeric
springs are interchangeable” (Br. 8). Rather, Appellants argue, “the
Examiner has improperly relied on hindsight to conclude that the
substitution of ovoid coil springs for the elastomeric springs in the
conveying apparatus of Figure 4 would be obvious” (id.; see also Reply Br.
4-5).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. When evaluating
claims for obviousness “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the
distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant
upon ex post reasoning. Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders
recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case
law nor consistent with it.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
(citations omitted). Moreover, as is often stated, any obviousness analysis
by necessity involves using hindsight, “but so long as it takes into account
only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013