Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
shown to be a result effective variable by the references. See, e.g., Aller, 220
F.2d at 456-58, 105 USPQ at 235; see also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).7 In this respect, we
note again here that Farnsworth discloses the high inclination angle
outermost cord layer provides cut resistance as well as stiffness, the latter
property recognized with respect to “belt design” as evinced by Gaudin.
With respect to Kohno, we recognized above that the reference would have
disclosed high modulus of elasticity coating rubber for the circumferential
belt provides certain advantages, and determined that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have recognized that the advantages would obtain if used in a
radial belt layer. See, e.g., KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41,
82 USPQ2d at 1396, quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336-37
(“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been
obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).
With respect to claim 5, Appellants have not pointed out the error in the
Examiner’s position with specificity, and we will not presume Appellants’
contentions with respect to the Examiner’s position. Cf. In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
7 The law is replete with cases in which the difference between
the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims. [Citations omitted.] These cases
have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant
must show that the particular range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range. [Citations omitted.]
26
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013