Examiner’s Proposed Modification Not Obvious, Would Render Prior Art Inoperative for Intended Purpose

On June 9, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) ­reversed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in Ex parte Leibold. The obviousness rejections were based on the Examiner’s combination of two references: Petterson and Witzel. However, the Board found that it would not have been obvious to modify Petterson based on the teaching of Witzel, because such a modification would render Petterson inoperative for its intended purpose.