Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 20
Application 08/139,888
the arrangement of Babel et al., changing the gauge
and flow cross section of the conical channel
incidentally changes the relative position of the
insert 74 and the conical nozzle tip 73. But this
is not the point of the teaching of Babel et al.,
nor is it what can fairly be said to suggest to one
of ordinary skill in art [sic]. Babel et al.
attaches no significance to this incidental
byproduct of changing the size of the conical
channel. The only motivation in Babel et al. is to
change the size of the conical channel, not to
change the relative axial position of the elements
at the tip. (Substitute Reply Br. at 2.)
The examiner replies, “Whether one forms this structure with
the desire to control the absolute velocity of the gas or with
the desire to control its fluctuation does not alter the
conclusion that the use of this structure would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer at 2.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err in construing the criteria for
obviousness. “Obviousness is not to be determined on the
basis of purpose alone.” In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774, 777, 145
USPQ 197, 199 (CCPA 1965). It is sufficient that references
suggest doing what an appellant did, although the appellant's
particular purpose was different from that of the references.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007