Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 15
Application No. 08/094,461
past decisions of the Patent Office); In re Zahn, 617 F.2d
261, 267, 204 USPQ 988, 995 (CCPA 1980) ("[W]e are not saying
the issuance of one patent is a precedent of much moment.");
Ex parte Tayama, 24 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1992) (prior issuance of patents for designs referred to as
icons has no significant precedential value in evaluating
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 171). Furthermore, the issues of
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 raised in this application
could not have been raised in determining patentability under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in U.S. Patent No. 5,308,190 since the Raymond
patent applied to reject the claims under appeal in this
application is not prior art to U.S. Patent No. 5,308,190.5
On pages 21-22 of the brief, the appellant argues that
Raymond teaches away from the claimed invention. We do not
agree. Raymond does not teach away from the use of exhaust
gases to heat his oil. While Raymond does disclose that his
5Raymond is prior art to this application under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) since the filing date of Raymond is prior the filing
date of this application. However, since Raymond is not "by
another," it is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to U.S.
Patent No. 5,308,190.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007