Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question is thus “whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id.
See Findings of Fact 54-55, 58, 65, and 67-69. Given, the teachings
of Chang and Chapin, the level of skill in the art, and small difference
between Chang and the subject matter of claims 25-26 and 36-37, we
conclude that the substitution of a recessed step (as found in Chapin) in
place of the centered gap taught by Chang would have been obvious.
For the reasons supra, we reject of claims 25-26 and 36-37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
(7)
New Ground of Rejection of Claims 21-22, 24, 30-33, 35, and 41
Reissue claims 21-22, 24, 30-33, 35, and 41 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the Bolasna II patent. See
Findings of Fact 56-57.
For the reasons supra, we reject of claims 21-22, 24, 30-33, 35,
and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) using our authority under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
- 32 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013