Appeal 2007-3994
Application 10/072,906
assembled preoxidized corrugated sheets into an assembly to be inserted into
a housing. Indeed, this person would have recognized the benefits of
preoxidizing the sheets prior to assembling the same into a cell structure
because as assembled, oxidation of the sheet surfaces would be more
difficult. See, e.g., In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the
art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner
could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of
obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference.’”). We further agree with the Examiner (Answer 6) that in the
absence of evidence, Appellants have not established that an oxidized
surface cannot be brazed (Br. 4-5). See, e.g., In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972) (“This court has said .
. . that mere lawyers’ arguments unsupported by factual evidence are
insufficient to establish unexpected results. [Citations omitted.]”). We
additionally point out, in this respect, that Usui would have disclosed,
among other things, electric welding as an alternative to brazing, and
Appellants’ argument does not address whether an oxidized surface
interferes with this fixing option.
Appellants do not contest the application of Kono and Chapman
(Br. 6).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013