Appeal 2007-2069
Application 10/723,000
skill in the art. Seal’s preference for convenience in attaching the strap of
the auxiliary stirrup to the saddle (Seal, col. 3, ll. 29-35) does not diminish
the obviousness of nonpreferred, inconvenient embodiments. In re Burckel,
592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Lamberti, 545
F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). We find that the
evidence supporting nonobviousness is outweighed by the evidence
supporting obviousness.
According, we conclude that the subject matter defined by Appellant’s
Claims 1, 8, and 18 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time made and is, therefore, unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Seal. Since all dependent claims stand or fall with
Appellant’s Claims 1, 8, and 18, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejections of
Claims 1-18 of Application 10/723,000, filed November 26, 2003, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Conclusion
Having considered all the evidence and arguments of record for and
against the patentability of Claims 1-18 of Application 10/723,000 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), we affirm all the appealed final rejections.
Order
Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting Claims 1-18 of
Application 10/723,000 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the time for taking future action in this
appeal cannot be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(2006).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013