Appeal No. 1998-1772 Page 11
Application No. 08/578,047
process of Ashok. We find this argument unpersuasive for the
following reasons. First, the rejection does not contemplate
providing the auger style feeding system of Sato in the
process of Ashok or for that matter in the process of Brooks.
Second, all of the features of the secondary reference need
not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference (see In
re Keller, supra, at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881) and the
artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one
prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip
Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). Thus, for the reasons stated by the appellant, one
skilled in the art in modifying Brooks' process to die cast a
product would not have included the auger style feeding system
of Sato.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 2 and 4
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007