Appeal No. 96-1290
Application 08/042,719
We do not agree with appellant’s assessment that Jaquard
“teaches away” from the claimed invention. While the invention
of Jaquard is taught to be a substitute for, or an alternative
to, a stabilized remote aiming control station, a reference is
good for all that it teaches and Jaquard clearly suggests that
remote aiming control stations were part of the prior art even if
Jaquard chose not to use them.
The problem with Jaquard is that the “remote” language
employed at the portion of the specification cited by the
examiner is speculative. While a control system may have been
known to be remote from the gun, there is no teaching or
suggestion that such a control system included a “means for
acquiring a target,” as claimed. The control system, or
“station,” cited by Jaquard is a “remote aiming control station.”
The instant claims call for “acquiring a target,” wherein the
acquiring means is at a location “remote” from the gun. A remote
aiming control station does not, necessarily, include a remote
means for acquiring a target. While it is possible that a remote
control means, mentioned as being known by Jaquard, may include a
means for acquiring a target, as recited in the instant claims,
such a conclusion would require a resort to speculation on our
part. We will not substitute speculation for a clear suggestion
by the prior art in order to sustain a rejection based on
35 U.S.C. ' 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007