Appeal 2007-3147
Application 10/072,435
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom…”). The
analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit, and where the
combination of prior art involves more than a simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
something ready for the improvement, the analysis should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness, which prima facie case has not been
adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. As shown by Factual
Finding (1) listed above, we determine that Martin discloses an abrasive
sheet with a body portion and a tip portion where the tip portion is separable
from said body portion and defines a separate region of the sheet material
relative to the body portion. Furthermore, as shown by Factual Finding (3)
listed above, we determine that Martin would have suggested multiple tip
configurations with different shapes and sizes.
As shown by Factual Finding (2) listed above, we determine that
Martin teaches that it was well known in this art that hand held electric
sanders have been designed to carry sandpaper sheets of quarter size, third
size, or half size. As shown by Factual Finding (4) listed above, we
determine that Simons teaches that it was known in the art to have sandpaper
with regions of weakened material (score lines) so that sections of the paper
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013