Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 13
Application No. 08/504,233
windings of the filaments as shown in Figure 8 of Davis.
Thus, we disagree with the appellant that the rejection
utilizing the combined teaching of Maas and Davis lacks the
requisite motivation and thus involved the use of
impermissible hindsight.
Lastly, the appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-8) that there
is clearly no need in Maas to prevent any longitudinal
extension and that Davis fails to show the need to limit the
longitudinal expansion of an inflatable mandrel to position
hydrophones. We find this argument unpersuasive for the
following reason. As long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
whole, the law does not require that the references be
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In
re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The Davis reference is not being relied upon to teach
an inflatable mandrel to correctly position hydrophones, but
is being relied upon to show that it is known to use fibers
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007