Appeal 2007-0236
Application 09/934,474
ingredients onto the polishing pad in the form of a sprayed mist in order to
obtain the advantages taught by Chamberlin. We agree.
The Appellants argue there is no teaching or suggestion of separately
spraying as a mist each of the ingredients onto a polishing table. According
to the Appellants, "[i]f one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the teachings of Murphy …, the entire slurry
composition would be sprayed on the surface of the polishing table" (Reply
Br. 3; emphasis deleted). We do not share the Appellants' view.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
applied references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Here,
the combined teachings of Murphy and Chamberlin include their respective
techniques for achieving their respective advantages. An artisan would have
combined these respective techniques in the Examiner’s proposed manner as
discussed above in order to obtain the cumulative benefits of the respective
advantages associated with these techniques.
In further support of their nonobviousness position, the Appellants
point out that neither Murphy nor Chamberlin contains any recognition of
the problem disclosed on pages 3-4 of their Specification and solved by their
invention. It is well established, however, that a motivation to combine
reference teachings need not be for obtaining the same advantages taught by
an applicant. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013