Appeal 2007-3992
Application 10/347,867
C. Discussion
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact
as to the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior
art and the claimed subject matter, and the level of ordinary skill in the
relevant arts. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966). The first task in the analysis of obviousness is to construe the
claims. During prosecution,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
If the underlying claim construction or findings of fact are erroneous, the
legal conclusion cannot stand. On appeal, the Appellant bears the
procedural burden of demonstrating that the Examiner committed reversible
error.
The critical limitation in the claimed subject matter is expressed as
follows in claim 1 (emphasis added):
at least an intake end of said garniture tongue being at least
composed in part of a steel alloy with high titanium carbide
content.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute a high titanium carbide content steel for the
hardened steel disclosed on the tobacco-contacting surface of the
downstream part 33 of the two-part garniture tongue taught by Labbe.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013