Appeal No. 1998-2064
Application 08/710,551
device includes piston and cylinder units 32 in the upper
housing which would appear to absorb impact forces, and in
that there is no suggestion in either Becker or Markus that
the Becker device might be inadequate for its intended
purpose. Furthermore, Markus is directed to a valve operator,
whereas Becker pertains to a tapping device for a turret-type
punch press (column 1, last four lines). The dissimilar
purposes and modes of operation of the applied references
makes it highly unlikely, in our view, that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined them in the specific
manner proposed by the examiner based on the teachings of the
references alone.
Where, as here, the prior art references require a
selective combination to render obvious a claimed invention,
there must be some reason for the combination other than
hindsight gleaned from the invention disclosure, Interconnect
Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551
(Fed. Cir. 1985). In the fact situation before us, we are
unable to agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007