Appellants prevail at Board in Nason
Appellants prevail in Ex parte Nason
Appellants contend the rejection should be reversed because it is predicated only on the conclusory statement that a gear coupled to a shape memory wire is a known structure, but “in the absence of any objective reason whatsoever as to why an artisan would have been motivated to combine the linear pumping mechanism disclosed in Idriss with the rotating gear disclosed in AbuJudom, [the conclusory statement] is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” (App. Br. 4, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).)
KSR is cited in favor of the appellants:
We agree with Appellants that the mere fact that AbuJudom described a gear coupled to shape memory wires to control fluid flow is not a reason to add a gear to Idriss’ device. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).