Appeal 2007-1765
Application 10/215,276
acknowledged by Appellants, Dahlin evidences that it was known in the art
to keep the modeling material free of moisture, ergo, the use of a drybox in
the machine. Accordingly, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the
art, cognizant of the problem of maintaining the modeling material free of
moisture, would have found it obvious to employ Appellants’ solution to the
problem, namely, to dry the thermoplastic material in the cassette before
loading into the machine. From our perspective, the problem of moisture in
the system, as well as its solution, would have been readily obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243-44, 147 USPQ
420, 421 (CCPA 1965). Manifestly, it is well known in many arts that when
moisture in a system presents a problem, components of the system should
be dried before and after use, as well as during operation if practically
possible. The inference of obviousness may be drawn from creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would ordinarily employ. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013