Appeal 2007-2031
Application 10/905,818
particularly where the Examiner noted the interchangeability of the two types of
actuators taught by Faber (Answer 40). Because this is a case where the
improvement is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions, no further analysis was required by the Examiner.
KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Claim 18 was not argued separately,
and falls with claim 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
C. Rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Heckman in view of Pepper and further in view of Butler.
The Examiner found that Heckman does not disclose that the cover assembly
extends laterally out past the sidewalls and overlaps in a vertical direction a top
portion of one or more of the side walls (Answer 7). Butler teaches a sailboat
canopy apparatus adapted to provide a water-tight cover for the upper portion of an
access opening to an interior cabin, wherein the perimeter of the canopy extends
past and overlaps in a vertical direction with ledge 40 on the outer edge of the
access opening (Finding of Fact 7).
Appellant argues that the canopy of Butler only appears to cover part of the
access opening, and the upper portion of the access opening that it does cover does
not appear to extend laterally out to at least or laterally out past the side walls of
the sail boat (Br. 28-29). However, the Examiner relies on Heckman for a cover
that is coextensive with the side walls and only looks to Butler for the teaching to
extend a cover past and overlap in a vertical direction with the side walls, which is
analogous to the ledge on the outer edge of the access opening of Butler.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013