Appeal No. 98-1033
Application No. 08/574,330
the applied references as suggesting the provision of
longitudinally oriented polishing grooves on the exterior
surface of a metallic bat, as now claimed.
In approaching the question of obviousness, it is
improper to consider the references in less than their
entireties, i.e., to disregard disclosures in the references
that diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand.
W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1540, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, it
is impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior
art references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of
the claimed invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). In our opinion, this is
precisely what the examiner has done in arriving at his
conclusion that the subject matter of the appealed claims
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of
the teachings of the applied references.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007