Appeal 2007-2031
Application 10/905,818
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to do so to have the cover sit more securely on the side walls (Answer 7).
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.
D. Rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Heckman in view of Pepper and further in view of Oehler.
The Examiner found that Heckman does not teach that the moving means is
human powered (Answer 8). Oehler teaches a boat with a retractable roof that can
be raised and lowered by human power, facilitated by assist or counter-balance
means (Finding of Fact 8).
Appellant repeats the arguments made against the combination of Heckman
and Pepper with Faber, which are equally unpersuasive here. Appellant also
argues against the combination of Oehler and Heckman because they are
“substantially different systems” and it is difficult to see how the counter balance
means of Oehler could be applied to the cover of Heckman and still achieve the
straight up and down movement of Heckman (Br. 33). Because straight up and
down movement is not a limitation of claim 25, this argument is not persuasive.
For the same reasons as cited for the substitution of the screw drive motors
of Faber for the pneumatic actuators of Heckman, we find that the Examiner did
not err in holding that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to replace the pneumatic actuators of
Heckman with the human-powered lifting mechanism of Oehler to save cost by not
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013