Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
In sum, Prazoff's evidence of secondary considerations is equivocal at
best. One could infer commercial success based on the limitations of the
claims, but one could just as easily attribute the success to other
considerations such as advertising, logistical skill, other design features, or
changing industry standards. Prazoff has failed to establish adequate nexus
between the commercial success and the claim limitations.
The subject matter of claims 9-11 would have been obvious
The examiner has successfully shown that all of the limitations of
claim 9 existed in two related prior art references. The combination of
Tsui's locking sleeve and Chen's rope light unites existing elements in a
predictable way to achieve an expected result. Tsui's sliding locking sleeve
would be an improvement over Chen's static locking sleeve since it would be
easier for consumers to use.
Prazoff has not argued claims 10 and 11 separately. We conclude that
their claimed subject matter would have been obvious as well.
Claims 1-8
We have already found claims 1-8 to have been anticipated, so the
obviousness question is moot. Alternatively, claims 1-8 would have been
obvious. The claims are not argued separately so they all stand or fall with
claim 9.83
83 We noted that Prazoff mentions limitations of claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 in a
footnote. Br. 48 n.6. The footnote, however, erroneously assumes that Chen
does not teach serial connection of rope lights. Once the full scope of
Chen's teachings are considered, the differences noted in the footnote
become irrelevant.
30
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013