Appeal 2007-2031
Application 10/905,818
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to extend the cover of
Heckman laterally out past the sidewalls and to overlap it in a vertical direction
with a top portion of one or more of the side walls as taught by Butler using
methods known in the art at the time the invention was made. Moreover, each of
the elements of Heckman, Pepper, and Butler combined by the Examiner performs
the same function when combined as it does in the prior art. Thus, such a
combination would have yielded predictable results. See Sakraida, 425 U.S. at
282, 189 USPQ at 453.
Claims 22 and 23 are combinations which only unite old elements with no
change in their respective functions and which yield predictable results. Thus, the
claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. In addition,
neither Appellant’s Specification nor Appellant’s arguments present any evidence
that extending the cover of Heckman laterally out past the sidewalls (claims 22 and
23) and to overlap it in a vertical direction with a top portion of one or more of the
side walls (claim 23) is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art. Moreover, the canopy of Butler is a technique that has been used to
improve one device (the sailboat of Butler), and one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same manner.
Because Appellant has not shown that extending the cover of Heckman
laterally out past the sidewalls and to overlap it in a vertical direction with a top
portion of one or more of the side walls would have been beyond the skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art, we find using the technique would have been obvious.
Under those circumstances, the Examiner did not err in holding that it would have
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013