Appeal No. 2000-2014
Application No. 08/713,672
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Kotzab, 217
F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination
of old elements. Thus, every element of a claimed
invention may often be found in the prior art.
However, identification in the prior art of each
individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat
patentability of the whole claimed invention.
Rather, to establish obviousness based on a
combination of the elements disclosed in the prior
art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or
teaching of the desirability of making the specific
combination that was made by the applicant
[citations omitted].
Moreover, the mere fact that the prior art could be so
modified would not have made the modification obvious unless
the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.
See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We must not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of
the radiant and airborne dryers of LePisto, Heikkilä and
Karlsson is to dry a web passing therethrough. The process of
drying (removal of moisture) in an airborne unit does not
require a temperature difference between the web and the air
passed over the web or an increase in the web temperature.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007