Appeal No. 98-2120 Application No. 08/607,915 support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art (Bausch & Lomb, Inc., v. 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 appellants’ invention without also providing evidence of the motivating force which would impel one skilled in the art to do what the appellants have done (Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993)). Here, we find no persuasive evidence of such a motivating force. While the examiner states that "Houlihan's lock #30" provides motivation, the examiner provides no explanation whatsoever as to why Houlihan's lock 30 provides motivation to combine the disparate teachings of Keith and Fierus, and we are at a total loss to understand why this might be the case. The examiner's reference to Houlihan establishing the "equivalence of lipstick and deodorant," at the most appears to have relevance 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007