Appeal No. 97-1107 Page 8
Application No. 08/047,512
Rossiter itself specifically teaches using converging-diverging optical beams and cells (Rossiter, col. 3,
lines 46-51) and Barnes teaches contouring the cell to approximate the shape of an optical beam
(Barnes, page 6, lines 30-34 and page 7, lines 7-9). The references as a whole imply that various
beam configurations are used in the processes of Barnes and Rossiter. Lew provides examples of
various known beam configurations.
Appellant cites In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
for the proposition that teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or
incentive to do so. We note that a suggestion to combine the references may come expressly from the
references themselves. However, it may also come from the knowledge of those skilled in the art that
certain references, or disclosures in the references, are known to be of special interest or importance in
the particular field. In addition, it may also come from the nature of a problem to be solved, leading
inventors to look to references relating to possible solutions to that problem. (citations omitted).
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 73 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996) . Here, the Barnes reference suggests that various types of cells can be fashioned to
conform to an IR beam and thus minimize the volume of the cell. Rossiter teaches designing a cell in a
converging-diverging shape and Lew teaches IR beams that converge and diverge. When the nature of
a spectroscopic problem required a converging-diverging beam, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have conformed the cell to that shape to minimize cell volume as indicated in Barnes and for the reasons
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007