Appeal No. 1998-2381
Application No. 08/304,725
or motivation for combining Fort or Rota with the APA, and
that even if it were obvious to combine the references the
resulting device
would still not have the claimed flanking units and central
cavity adapted to receive an oxygenator.
It is well established that before a conclusion of
obviousness may be based on a combination of references, the
examiner must show that some objective teaching or suggestion
in
the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available in the
art, would have led those of ordinary skill to combine the
teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir.
1996); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784
(Fed. Cir. 1992); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
Refractories Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297 n. 24, 227 USPQ 657, 667
n. 24 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The APA, as illustrated in
appellants’ Figure 1, fails to teach or suggest a central
cavity adapted to receive an oxygenator, wherein the central
cavity is between two flanking units on a console and the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007