Appeal No. 2005-2315 Παγε 5
Application No. 10,311,180
gaps. The references themselves must provide some teaching whereby the appellant's
combination would have been obvious. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d
1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That is, something in the prior art as a
whole must suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the appellant that there is no motivation to combine the teachings
of Heard and Kremer. Heard does not disclose that there is a need for detecting the
state of the capper by sensing the movement of the permanent magnets, as argued by
the examiner. In fact, as the containers in Heard stop rotating once the containers are
rotated out of contact with frictional surface 41 (Fig. 1), there does not appear to be any
reason to sense the rotation of the permanent magnets.
Further, Kremer does not relate to capping machines and thus does not include
a motivation or suggestion to use the permanent magnet detector in a capping machine.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of the examiner. The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007