Appeal No. 1999-1080
Application No. 08/681,022
from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the
art that certain references are of special
importance in a particular field, see Pro-Mold, 75
F.3d at 1573 (citing Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297 n.
24, 227 USPQ 657, 667 n. 24 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, "[w]hen determining the patentability of
a claimed invention which combines two known
elements, "the question is whether there is
something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making
the combination.'" See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ
481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
In our opinion, the motivation on the part of one having
ordinary skill in the art for employing the dual chamber pump
taught by Moore in the pump dispenser taught by Favre is that
identified by the examiner, i.e., to obtain the self-evident
advantages of a self priming pump and to avoid the
disadvantages of a single chamber pump discussed by Moore at
col. 1, ll. 20-29.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further requires that
each entire valve moves into and out of contact with a valve
seat during actuation of the pump means.
The appellants argue that Moore’s valves do not move into
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007