Appeal 2006-2253
Application 10/464,595
ISSUE
The sole issue in this case is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in holding that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have been motivated to modify the Dhont device so
as to be comprised of a thermally resistant material, as taught by Robbins.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dhont describes an apparatus for simulating respiratory conditions.
The apparatus includes a control device 3 which is housed in a carrying case
(col. 2, ll. 26 to 28). Dhont does not disclose the material of the carrying
case. Dhont is silent about the environment in which the control device 3 is
utilized.
Robbins discloses a fire resistant safe comprised of internal and
exterior walls that encapsulate a space filled with insulation 34 (col. 5, ll. 9
to 12). The insulation is a mixture of water, Portland cement, cellulose
fibers and a foaming agent (col. 5, ll. 15 to 20). The insulation 34 absorbs
heat energy by changing the water in the mix from liquid state to a vapor
state at 100 degrees centigrade (col. 5, ll. 16 to 20).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 Appellants.
Obviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior
art to produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching, suggestion or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013