Appeal 2007-2618
Application 10/713,178
success. . . . For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.” (citations omitted).
Appellants’ contentions do not successfully rebut the prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to any of the grounds of rejection. We
recognize that Ungar is directed to a hand-held electric tool that is in a
different field of endeavor from the field to which the claimed invention is
directed as Appellants point out. Br. 6. However, Ungar’s hand held
electric soldering device is held by hand at the workpiece, requiring
protection for the hand from heat associated with the use of the device be
afforded the user. We are of the opinion that the problem of user safety with
respect to held-held laser welding devices where the user’s hand is close to
the workpiece requires similar considerations, and the shape of Ungar’s heat
protection shield would have commended itself to the attention of one of
ordinary skill in this art faced with the problem even though Ungar is in a
related area of endeavor. See, e.g., In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659-60, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992).5 With respect to claim 15, we
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
5 A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be
in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering the problem. Thus, the purposes of both the
invention and the prior art are important in determining whether
the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the
invention attempts to solve.
Clay, 966 F.2d at 659-60, 23 USPQ2d at 1060.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013