Appeal No. 98-1458 Page 22
Application No. 08/499,211
to automatically limit the depth to which fasteners are driven
to permit expansion and contraction of the panels. We
recognize that Godes provides his ridges for reasons different
than the appellants, however, 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).
As to claims 6 and 20, it is our opinion that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious for the reasons set
forth above in our affirmance of the examiner's rejection of
claim 6.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 9 and 25 is affirmed; the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 10 through 24 and 26 is reversed; a
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007