Appeal No. 98-2120
Application No. 08/607,915
support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts
necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art (Bausch &
Lomb, Inc., v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448,
230 USPQ 416, 419 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823
(1987) and In re Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-
02 (CCPA 1972)), and obviousness cannot be established by
locating references which describe various aspects of
appellants’ invention without also providing evidence of the
motivating force which would impel one skilled in the art to
do what the appellants have done (Ex parte Levengood, 28
USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993)). Here, we find
no persuasive evidence of such a motivating force. While the
examiner states that "Houlihan's lock #30" provides
motivation, the examiner provides no explanation whatsoever as
to why Houlihan's lock 30 provides motivation to combine the
disparate teachings of Keith and Fierus, and we are at a total
loss to understand why this might be the case. The examiner's
reference to Houlihan establishing the "equivalence of
lipstick and deodorant," at the most appears to have relevance
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007