Appeal 2007-2817
Application 11/049,176
structures which were previously welded provided economical and/or structural
advantages to the structures and whether such evidence renders the present claims
obvious in view of the prior art. See e.g., KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740 (“[I]f a technique
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.”)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14, 15, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Berckhan,
claims 2, 3, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart and
Berckhan, and claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berckhan
and Omundson.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 17, and 22-25 is
reversed. The application is remanded to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1) (2006) for further consideration of a rejection. If a Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer is written in response to this remand, the provisions of 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) apply.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013