Appeal 2007-1802
Application 10/648,575
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-407, 160
USPQ 809, 811-12 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not
only 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, however, should be made explicit and
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,
127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The Examiner has found that Laurent describes a vacuum system for a
vehicle comprising a hose storage module having storage space and adapted
to house a retractable vacuum hose and a vacuum canister fluidly connected
to an end of the vacuum hose (Answer 4). Laurent discloses the hose is
capable of automatic winding (Laurent 5, para. 5). Laurent discloses the
vacuum console can be integrated into the construction of the vehicle and
attached adjacent to the central console (Laurent 5, para. 5).
The Examiner found that Schollmayer describes a vacuum cleaner
system for a vehicle comprising a vacuum console that houses the vacuum
nozzle (Answer 4). Schollmayer discloses the nozzle suction portion of the
vacuum cleaning system is located behind the armrests portion of the rear
seat (Schollmayer 6, para. 2). The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Laurent with a
console in view of the teaching of Schollmayer in order to be able to access
the hose as well as hide it when not in use (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine the teachings of the Laurent and Schollmayer references.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013