Appeal No. 2000-1514 Page 9
Application No. 09/038,450
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 1 to 12 and 14 to 17 under appeal all require the
power mechanism to be positioned outboard of an outer edge of
the chock path. However, this limitation is not suggested by
the applied prior art (i.e., Springer). In that regard, while
Springer does teach a drive mechanism including a motor 16 and
a chain assembly 18, Springer does not teach or suggest
2(...continued)
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., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), 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 particular. See In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007