Appeal No. 1996-1291
Application No. 08/182,409
patterns for Kitabatake’s ‘pre-printed’ transfer pattern” (see
Answer, page 6). To establish obviousness within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the teachings of the prior art taken as a whole must
provide motivation or suggestion to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227
USPQ 543, 550-51 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, for the reasons
well articulated by appellant at pages 5 through 10 of the
Brief, we can think of no reason, absent appellant’s own
disclosure, why one of ordinary skill in this art would have
been motivated to combine the diverse teachings of Kitabatake,
Takiyama and Golchert as the examiner has proposed. Although
we find that the transfer method of the type described in
Kitabatake is useful for “almost all objects including human
skin, clothes, building materials and the like,” see column 1,
lines 65 to column 2, line 3, the types of chemicals used in
Kitabatake’s transfer method are materially different from
those chemicals described in Takiyama, compare Kitabatake,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007