Appeal No. 93-1883
Application No. 07/759,691
that it is the teachings of the prior art taken as a whole
which must provide the motivation or suggestion to combine the
prior art references. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988) and Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132,
1143, 227 USPQ 543, 550-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The examiner
cannot pick and choose from any one reference only so much of
it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other
parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See Bausch & Lomb, Inc., v. Barnes-
Hind/Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448, 230 USPQ 416, 419
(Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823 (1987); In re
Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-02 (CCPA 1972).
As the court in Uniroyal, 837 F.2d at 1051, 5 USPQ2d at 1438
stated "it is impermissible to use the claims as a frame and
the prior art references as a mosaic to piece together a
facsimile of the claimed invention." Accordingly, we conclude
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007