Appeal No. 1999-1990 Page 11
Application No. 08/635,599
The appellant's arguments are not persuasive that any
error in the examiner's determination regarding the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter has occurred. As
long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the
law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In re Dillon, 919
F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc),
cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Additionally, the appellants argue that the deficiencies
of Fabrik discussed above with respect to claim 1 are not
remedied by Dunham. We find this argument unpersuasive in
view of our holding above that claim 1 is anticipated (i.e.,
not deficient) by Fabrik.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007