Ex Parte Venegas - Page 5

            Appeal 2007-1219                                                                                 
            Application 10/798,635                                                                           

                         When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design                           
                         incentives and other market forces can prompt variations                            
                         of it, either in the same field or a different one.   If a                          
                         person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable                                
                         variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.   For the same                       
                         reason, 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 his or her skill.                                      
            Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  The operative question in this “functional                      
            approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of                   
            prior art elements according to their established functions.”  Id.                               
                                                ANALYSIS                                                     
                   We will not sustain the rejections on appeal.  As an initial matter, we do not            
            find that Norton discloses vertical metal pipes each buried below a ground surface               
            leaving a portion exposed above ground.  As noted above, Norton’s vertical pipes                 
            are telescoped into tubular receiving elements placed in concrete base units.  The               
            base units are not installed in the ground either.  In fact, they are mobile in the              
            sense that they are towed from place to place by a tractor.                                      
                   Secondly, we do not find, that the panel unit, i.e., the materials spanning the           
            infill area is attached to one or more horizontal or vertical pipes by a tether as               
            recited in the last limitation of claim 1.  We acknowledge the Examiner’s argument               
            that Norton uses wires to attach the material spanning the infill area to the metal              
            pipes.  However, the expression “tethered” denotes to us that the material spanning              
            the infill area remains attached to the metal pipes after the mounts attaching the               
            panel to the pipes is broken away by a predetermined force.                                      
                   There is no disclosure in Norton that the metal wires holding the panels in               
            place would continue to attach the panels to the framework once the breakaway                    

                                                     5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013