Ex parte SCHMIT et al. - Page 16




                 Appeal No. 1998-0425                                                                                    Page 16                        
                 Application No. 08/272,527                                                                                                             


                 double patenting is not patentably distinct from a claim in an                                                                         
                 inventor's earlier patent.  Since in making the determination                                                                          
                 that it would have been obvious to modify the claimed                                                                                  
                 apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,620 to include the sealing                                                                          
                 means, retaining means, and/or measuring means recited in the                                                                          
                 claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,328,601 the examiner relied on an                                                                          
                 inappropriate mode of analysis in attempting to establish                                                                              
                 "obviousness-type" double patenting, we will not sustain the                                                                           
                 examiner's specific rejection of claims 2, 3 and 11 to 32.5                                                                            

                          5We note that the claims under appeal recite limitations                                                                      
                 (e.g., acid resistant supply piping having a synthetic resin                                                                           
                 inner surface (claim 2); synthetic thermoplastic or thermoset                                                                          
                 resin plenums (claims 3, 11 and 23); details of the diffusion                                                                          
                 plates; etc.) not found in any claim in U.S. Patent Nos.                                                                               
                 4,889,620 and 5,328,601.  The examiner's mere assertion that                                                                           
                 these differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary                                                                           
                 skill in the art is not sufficient to establish that such                                                                              
                 differences would have been obvious since the examiner has not                                                                         
                 provided any evidence to support that assertion.  Evidence of                                                                          
                 a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference                                                                            
                 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, see                                                                                
                 Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d                                                                             
                 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996),                                                                                     
                 Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73 F.3d                                                                              
                 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), although                                                                            
                 "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the                                                                             
                 pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47                                                                          
                 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  The range of sources                                                                              
                 available, however, does not diminish the requirement for                                                                              
                 actual evidence.  That is, the showing must be clear and                                                                               
                                                                                                            (continued...)                              





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007