Appeal No. 2005-2315 Παγε 4
Application No. 10,311,180
The examiner is of the opinion that Heard describes the invention as claimed
except that Heard does not describe a detector to determine the state of movement of
the permanent magnets (see answer page 4). The examiner relies on Kremer for
describing a device including a detector for determining the state of movement of the
permanent magnet which sends signals to a comparator based on the state. The
examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to use the detector taught by
KREMER to sense the state of movement of the permanent
magnets in the invention of HEARD ET AL in order to electronically
detect the state of the capper for increased quality assurance
[answer at page 4].
When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the
claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the
prior art to make the selection made by the appellant. Obviousness cannot be
established by combining the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention,
absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination. The extent
to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be fairly inferred from, the
references, is decided on the facts of each case, in light of the prior art and its
relationship to the appellant's invention. As in all determinations under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the decision maker must bring judgment to bear. It is impermissible, however,
simply to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the
appellant's structure as a template and selecting elements from references to fill the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007