Appeal No. 99-0230
Application No. 08/396,277
the artisan carte blanche to substitute any sensor for the one
disclosed in Edgar, that is not the case, for the mere fact
that the prior art structure could be modified does not make
such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. Here, the examiner has not stated,3
nor do we perceive, any teaching, suggestion or incentive
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
select one particular sensor over the others to replace the
one disclosed in Edgar.
It is our opinion that the teachings of the applied
references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to claims 1 and 11.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
3See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007