Appeal 2006-1849
Application 10/387,139
that the Examiner may “properly rely . . . on a conclusion of obviousness
‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill
in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
must establish motivation by showing a “need” or some deficiency in
Christians’ integrated environmental control system that is fulfilled by
Hipsky’s environmental control system. Appellants appear to require an
explicit motivation from the references themselves for the combination to be
proper. The aforenoted authority does not support such a requirement.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has
improperly combined references based solely on whether the references
“may be” or “could be” combined. While it is improper to combine
references simply because they “could be” combined, In re Mills, 916 F.2d
680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990), that is not the situation
in this appeal. Rather, in this appeal, the Examiner has demonstrated that by
the combination of Hipsky’s second turbine with an air cycle machine in
Christians’ integrated environmental control system, a cheaper and more
efficient aircraft environmental control system results such that implicit
motivation for the combination stems from the universal desire to improve a
product (i.e., environmental control systems). Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368.
Additionally, the Examiner has established that using a second turbine in an
aircraft environmental control system is commonly known in the art such
that no additional evidence of motivation for the combination of Hipsky’s
second turbine with an air cycle machine in Christians’ integrated
environmental control system is required. Id.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007