Appeal No. 96-3130
Application 08/225,653
Sperry would not inherently function "in the same way," the
examiner challenged the appellants to prove that Sperry's
structure would not, citing In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169
USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971) as authority.
The appellants argue that there is no suggestion to combine
the teachings of the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner. This is particularly the case, in the appellants'
view, since the references are not concerned with the appellants'
problem and "don't even recognized the desire, or need, to
enhance fragmentation and/or vaporization of the fuel droplets as
they pass through the intake passages within the cylinder head"
(see brief, page 25). With respect to the examiner's position
that the protuberance of Sperry would inherently function to
enhance fragmentation and/or vaporization of the fuel droplets,
the appellants contend that "[t]here is no mention, nor is there
a scintilla of evidence that supports the conclusion, that the
Appellants' further vaporization is inherent to the Sperry
configuration" (see brief, page 21).
We are unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments. While
there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to
combine existing elements to produce the claimed device (see ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007