Appeal No. 1998-2753
Application No. 08/740,887
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
to combine the teachings in the manner proposed by the
examiner. We agree with the appellants.
We begin our analysis by focusing on the admonition of
our reviewing court that the mere fact that the prior art
could be modified does not make such a modification obvious
unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so.
See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). For the reasons hereinafter stated, it is our
view that the applied prior art fails to suggest the
desirability of the modification to Pinson that has been
proposed by the examiner. First of all, there is no mention
in any of the three secondary references of utilizing
hyperspectral imaging for a missile firing system. Cutts
teaches utilizing hyperspectral imaging from a vehicle in
space to scan the earth (column 3, lines 1-2 and 50) for the
purpose of identifying mineral or vegetative types (column 7,
lines 65-66). While the appellants have acknowledged that the
system disclosed in Davies would be “suitable for use” in the
claimed missile system (specification, page 4), the reference
does not mention such use, suggesting only that the system be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007