Appeal No. 95-2456
Application 08/059,895
artisan, confronted with the same problems as the
inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed
invention, would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner
claimed.
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-
8
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
The examiner=s answer sets out eight claim
limitations not provided for in Schaffner. In most
instances an additional reference is relied upon to
overcome a particular missing limitation and to evidence
conventionality; although in some cases, the missing
limitations are described as being Awell within the
purview of a skilled artisan@ (examiner=s answer, p. 7)
or as Aan art recognized parameter@ (examiner=s answer,
sentence bridging pp. 7-8). However, we are provided no
reason why one of ordinary skill
would want to make all these changes to Schaffner=s
soybean
drying process to arrive at appellants= leguminous snack-
making process, which does not involve soybeans.
Combining prior art references without evidence of
such a suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply
takes the inventor's disclosure as a blueprint
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007