Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 21
Application 08/139,888
In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1040 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ
602, 605 (CCPA 1967)).
Here, Babel includes a proper suggestion for combining
its teachings to obtain the claimed invention. The reference
discloses that its conic flow channel 78 can be fine-tuned by
screwing a threaded section 88 of insert 74 more- or less-
deep. This permits the composition of a mixture and the
kinetic energy of a pressure gas beam to be adjusted according
to operating conditions. Col. 8, ll. 50-56. Because such an
adjustment would be “potentially beneficial,” (Substitute
Reply Br. at 2), the teachings of the references would have
suggested their combination. The suggestion does not have to
be the same as the appellants’ motivation for their invention.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Hisayoshi in view of Babel.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007