Appeal 2007-2404
Application 10/445,666
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.
Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
(1976)). The Court reasoned that
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Id. at 1742.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
recognized that a permanent attachment means, such as Frislie’s stitching,
would have been useful for attaching the mask portion of Reitz’s mask/cap
combination to the cap portion. We therefore also agree with the Examiner
that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Appellant argues that “the cited references neither individually nor in
combination disclose the claimed features of the invention” (Br. 3).
Specifically, Appellant urges that Reitz’s cap is distinguishable from the
claimed cap because Reitz’s cap has a conventional adjustment strap (id. at
3, 5), and because Reitz’s Figure 4 shows that the cap/mask combination can
be worn with the cap unattached to the mask (id. at 3-4).
We do not find this argument persuasive. We note that Reitz’s cap
has a conventional adjustment strap which could interfere with decorations
on the mask portion of the headgear (see Rietz, Figures 2 and 3). However,
because claim 1 uses the transitional term “comprising,” it encompasses the
presence of additional elements, including Reitz’s adjustment strap. See
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013