Ex Parte Sokola - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-2096                                                                                  
                Application 10/611,765                                                                            

                ordinary skill in this art would have employed a likeness of a pig instead of a                   
                dolphin.                                                                                          
                       Accordingly, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art                  
                armed with the knowledge in the art, routinely following the combined                             
                teachings of Buj, Strandberg, Frucher, and Brenkus would have reasonably                          
                arrived at the claimed dinnerware article encompassed by claims 1 and 16,                         
                including all of the limitations thereof arranged as required therein, without                    
                resort to the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification.  See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co.                  
                v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007)                             
                (analysis supporting obviousness should “identify a reason that would have                        
                prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements” in                        
                the manner claimed); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329,                            
                1334-337 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,                         
                881 (CCPA 1981) (“the test [for obviousness] is what the combined                                 
                teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill                       
                in the art”).                                                                                     
                       Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record                      
                before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the                               
                combined teachings of Buj, Strandberg, Frucher, and Brenkus with                                  
                Appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness                            
                and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims                            
                1 through 5, 7, 10 through 13, and 16, 19, and 20 would have been obvious                         
                as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                                      
                       We cannot reach the same conclusion with respect to the ground of                          
                rejection of claims 17 and 18.  Like Appellant, we determine Gruneisen III                        


                                                        8                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013