In Re Charles D. Roselin, 57 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Charles D. Roselin appeals from the June 28, 1994 decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), Appeal No. 94-2086. The Board affirmed the examiner's final rejection of claims 12-21 of application Serial No. 07/655,261, entitled "Art/Sound Stereo Speaker System." The Board concluded, inter alia, that the examiner properly rejected claims 12-21 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 4,267,405 (Russell) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,933,219 (Butler), U.S. Patent No. 3,938,617 (Forbes), U.S. Patent No. 2,068,590 (Applestam) and Japanese Patent No. 55-46646 (Harata).¹ 

The ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law, subject to complete and independent review on appeal. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1935 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We defer to the Board under the appropriate standard of review, however, regarding underlying factual determinations, such as what a reference teaches. In re Napier, No. 93-1363, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS 11956, at * 6 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 1995).

The Board examined each of the prior art references and found that every structural limitation in Roselin's claimed invention was taught in at least one of these references. The Board then concluded that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine these references to produce the claimed invention. Having reviewed the Board's decision and Roselin's arguments to the contrary, we find no reversible error in the Board's judgment, and therefore affirm.