Appeal No. 2000-0895
Application No. 08/754,797
The cartridge 238 [shown in Figure 7] is principally
intended as a purifier and would not normally be
used with water containing large amounts of
suspended particles. For such conditions, the
cartridge 192 [shown in Figure 6] could be
substituted.
The appellants, on the other hand, argue (main brief,
pages 10-13) that motivation is lacking for combining the
teachings of Magnusson and either Parker or Knight along the
lines of claims 22, 28 or 42.
As both the examiner and the appellants recognize,
obviousness cannot be established by combining the teachings
of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, absent some
teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination.
The extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or
may be fairly inferred from, the references is decided on the
facts of each case, in light of the prior art and its
relationship to
the appellants’ invention. As in all determinations under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the decision maker must bring judgment to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007