Appeal No. 1998-0129 Page 16
Application No. 08/438,062
The arguments are not persuasive that any error in the
examiner's determination regarding the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter has occurred. As long as some
motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided
by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require
that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated
by the inventor. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16
USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500
U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Upon reevaluating anew the evidence of obviousness
presented by the examiner along with the evidence of
nonobviousness relied upon by appellants, we conclude that the
evidence of obviousness substantially outweighs the evidence
of nonobviousness for the reasons outlined above.
Accordingly, the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Miller, in view of each of Koyama or
McMillan are affirmed. As claims 2 and 5-7 stand or fall with
claim 1, the rejections of claims 2 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Miller, in view of each of Koyama or
McMillan are also affirmed.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007