Appeal No. 96-1237
Application No. 07/994,770
supporting the combination. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2
USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). From our perspective, the
prior art applied by the examiner simply does not contain the
requisite teaching, suggestion or incentive for combining pieces
of this prior art in such a manner as to obtain the here claimed
invention. Our fundamental reason for reaching this
determination is the fact that the various individual features of
the applied prior art relied upon by the examiner concern
differing problems, functions and purposes.
Specifically, the spacer element of Cunnington performs a
spacing function for the purpose of militating against the
problem of insulation compression (e.g., see lines 21 through 32
in the first column on page 2). This function and purpose are
not applicable to the Admitted Prior Art shown at the upper
portion in Figure 1 of the appellants’ drawing since the
insulation of this prior art does not possess a compression
problem. Indeed, there is no insulation at all at the location
of this admitted prior art structure into which the examiner
proposes placing Cunnington’s spacer element. Further, the
Millard patent not only fails to cure this defect but possesses a
similar one (i.e., the problem, function and purpose associated
with patentee’s grommet do not appropriately correspond to those
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007