Appeal No. 1999-2029 Page 8
Application No. 08/431,360
themselves since the coils are located adjacent to the
strands and are, in fact touching the strands. Since the
coils are obviously heated they would, in turn, emit heat
to the fibers.
The appellants argue that there is no teaching or
suggestion within Phelps to arrive at the invention as set
forth in claim 1. Specifically, the appellants believe that
(1) Phelps suggests only applying a heat source around (i.e.,
external to) a fibrous member-encased coil, and (2) Phelps
does not suggest applying a heat source internal to the
fibrous member-encased coil.
Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
modify a reference may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be
solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73 F.3d
1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), although
"the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007