Appeal 2007-2189
Application 10/249,909
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER LATVIS IN VIEW OF SURET
Appellant argues that there is no motivation for the combination of
Latvis in view of Suret (Br. 12). Appellant further argues that the “bezel”
claim feature is not disclosed by Latvis or Suret (Br. 12).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 18,
and 22-26 over Latvis in view of Suret.
It is questionable if the claimed “bezel” is met by Latvis’ “shaped
edges of the end panel that fit with the sides and the top of the welding
device” as “bezel” is defined by Examiner (Answer 7). However, regardless
if the “bezel” claim feature is disclosed by Latvis, there is nothing in the
references that would have suggested the combination of Suret’s flaps with
Latvis’ welding machine. In fact, the Examiner’s motivation for combining
Suret’s flaps with Latvis’ welding machine (i.e., “to provide completely
unhindered access to the modules” (Answer 4)) is contrary to Latvis’
disclosure. Latvis has no covers obstructing access to knobs 7 or terminals
on front panel 5 (Latvis, Figure 1, reference numerals 5 and 7), such that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to add Suret’s
flaps to Latvis’ front panel 5 to provide unhindered access to the terminals
and knobs when Latvis already has unhindered access (i.e., no cover).
It is clear that the Examiner has applied impermissible hindsight to
piece together Latvis’ and Suret’s disclosures to arrive at Appellant’s
claimed invention. It is improper to use hindsight in the selection of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013