Appeal No. 1997-0164
Application 08/349,300
some teaching or suggestion, in the prior art, to combine the
elements.” Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119
F.3d 953, 957, 43 USPQ2d 1294, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As
stated by our reviewing court in In re Dembiczak:3
We have noted that evidence of a suggestion,
teaching, or motivation to combine 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,
[citations omitted], although ‘the suggestion more
often comes from the teachings of the pertinent
references’ [citation omitted]. The range of
sources available, however, does not diminish the
requirement for actual evidence. That is, the showing
must be clear and particular. (Emphasis added).
The examiner finds that Bell discloses a process of
making a confection of peanuts by coating the peanuts with
syrup, plasticizing the nuts, compressing the mixture to a
uniform thickness, conveying the product on a belt, and
cooling the product (Answer, page 4). The examiner also finds
that Knechtel discloses comminuting popcorn to add to a peanut
brittle mixture, using a conveyor, binder and a cooling device
(id.). The examiner recognizes the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the primary references to Bell and
3 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007