Appeal 2006-2711
Application 10/662,935
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this instance, both Appellant and
Warren deal with pivot joint couplings for permitting swinging or angular
adjustment of one tubular member of a tubular conduit relative to another
tubular member of the tubular conduit while still providing a tight joint
between the two members (Specification 1-2 and 3; Warren 2: 1-3).
Additionally, the tubular members and joints of both Warren and Appellant
are used for directing liquid therethrough. We therefore conclude that
Warren is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
Appellant is involved and is thus analogous to Appellant’s invention.
Having established that Warren is analogous prior art, the next
question is whether it would have been obvious to combine Warren with
Thulin in the manner proposed by the Examiner. A suggestion, teaching, or
motivation to combine the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be
found explicitly in the prior art, as the teaching, motivation, or suggestion
may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in
the references. The test for an implicit showing is what the combined
teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, like our reviewing court, “[w]e start from the self-
evident proposition that mankind, in particular, inventors, strive to improve
that which already exists.” Dystar Textilfarben GMBH & Co. Deutschland
KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1363, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (Fed.
Cir. Oct. 3, 2006) (quoting Pro-Mold & Tool Co. Inc. v. Great Lakes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013