Appeal No. 1998-0089
Application No. 08/303,115
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). Even when
obviousness is based on a single prior art
reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion
or motivation to modify the teachings of that
reference. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft
Breaking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d
1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996). [Emphasis added.]
The examiner has not explained why the artisan would have
been motivated to rearrange Henein's disclosed parts to
produce the claimed structure. While we agree that it would
have been obvious to insulate the components in an electronic
device such as a pump in order to prevent corrosion, that
consideration does not amount to a suggestion to rearrange the
order of Henein's pump, motor, and electronic control
apparatus in such a way as to
satisfy claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-5, 12, 13, 17, and
20 based on Henein is therefore reversed.
As the foregoing deficiency in Henein is not remedied by
Iwai, the rejection of claims 6-11, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21
based on Henein in view of Iwai is also reversed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007