Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 9
Application No. 08/110,269
Br. at 8.) The examiner replies, “the appellant's argument is
not persuasive because ‘the speed’ was motivation for
combining the two references.” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
The appellant erred in construing the criteria for
obviousness. Obviousness is not determined based on purpose
alone. In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774, 777, 145 USPQ 197, 199 (CCPA
1965). It is sufficient that references suggest doing what an
appellant did, although the appellant's particular purpose was
different from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d
1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967).
Here, Naemura suggests combining the references to obtain
the claimed invention for the aforementioned reasons. The
suggestion does not have to be the same as the appellant’s.
Third, the appellant argues that combining Majima and
Naemura renders the references inoperative or is contrary to
their teachings. (Appeal Br. at 9-12.) The appellant also
makes this argument regarding claim 6. (Id. at 12-13.) The
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007