Appeal 2007-1220
Application 10/688,033
9. Contrary to Appellants’ suggestion (Br. 4), Higashinaka does not
suggest that a diameter of 0.4 is “undesirable” but rather that filaments
“having a diameter of more than 4.0 mm are too thick to be cut” (col. 6. ll.
63-64).
10. In fact, again as Appellants admit, even Higashinaka’s working
examples disclose a ratio of hook height to diameter very close to that of
claim 24, i.e., 6.5 compared to 6.0. (See Appellants’ table, Br. 5.)
11. One skilled in the art would have been motivated by
Higashinaka’s teachings to vary such result-effective variables to obtain
woven hook fastener products having needed characteristics, e.g., strength
and flexibility, for given applications sought in the market and would have
had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Discussion of the § 103(a) Issue
Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 24 and 40 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the relevant art. (FFs 1-11.) Appellants’ preferred ranges for their
hook filament height and diameter and their base thickness either overlap
with or are very close to those disclosed by Higashinaka (FF 7). Given such
a situation, the skilled artisan would have known to try various combinations
to optimize Higashinaka’s products and/or to respond to market forces.
“When 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 Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “Granting patent protection to advances that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013