Appeal No. 2000-0581
Application No. 08/429,155
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a
prior art reference or to combine reference teachings to
arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ
972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the
requisite motivation must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and
not from the appellant's disclosure. See, e.g., Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
For the reasons discussed supra, we find no teaching or
suggestion to combine the applied references in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Moreover, even if the references
were combined as the examiner proposes, it is not apparent to
us, and the examiner has not explained, how appellant's
claimed invention would result. In this regard, the examiner
has not pointed out where in the references the attaching
devices of the blades (claim 1), the mounting devices of the
blades (claim 22) or the attaching device and fastening means
of the blade tips (claim 28) are taught or suggested.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007