Appeal No. 2000-0788 Page 6
Application No. 09/017,618
USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, every element of a
claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. See id.
However, identification in the prior art of each individual
part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the
whole claimed invention. See id. Rather, to establish
obviousness based on a
combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there
must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the
desirability of making the specific combination that was made
by the appellant. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48
USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come
explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature
of the problem to be solved. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999,
50 USPQ2d at 1617. In addition, the teaching, motivation or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole,
rather than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007