Appeal 2008-0088
Application 10/662,426
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.”); 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.’”); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567-68, 152 USPQ 618, 619
(CCPA 1967) (express suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the
same or similar results is not necessary to establish obviousness).
Appellants principally rely on the same arguments submitted with respect to
claim 1 which we considered above. Br. 11-12.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Tateyama
with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious as a matter of law under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013