Appeal No. 98-1310
Application 08/368,685
Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448, 230 USPQ 416,
419 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 823 (1987) and In re Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172
USPQ 298, 301-02 (CCPA 1972)), and obviousness cannot be
established by locating references which describe various
aspects of appellant's invention without also providing
evidence of the motivating force which would impel one skilled
in the art to do what the appellant has done (Ex parte
Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993)).
Here, we find no persuasive evidence of a motivating force in
the combined teachings of Burk and Adamczyk which would impel
the artisan to add supplemental air "at one of the engine and
a point downstream of the trap" in the manner expressly
required by independent claim 1.
As to claims 10-17, even if the references were combined
in the manner proposed by the examiner, the claimed invention
would not result. That is, independent claim 10 expressly
requires a "sensor/controller means . . . for sensing when the
trap is desorbing hydrocarbons, for sensing the quantity of
hydrocarbons in the exhaust gas stream . . . ." Although the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007