Appeal 1997-3391
Application 08/212,578
and that none of the three prior art references describe the
problem (minimizing sedative side-effects) said to have been
solved by applicants. Apart from the fact that there is no
evidence that applicants solve any sedative problem, the reason
for combining teachings of the prior art need not be the same as
the reason applicants developed an invention. In re Kemps, 97
F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Although
the motivation to combine here differs from that of the
applicant, the motivation in the prior art to combine the
references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant
to establish obviousness.").
We have considered all other argument presented, but find
them unavailing.
C. Decision
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lobisch, Eichel and Tamás is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
SHERMAN D. WINTERS, )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
______________________________)
WILLIAM F. SMITH, ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007