Appeal No. 2000-1993 Page 5
Application No. 09/157,130
588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981);
and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972). But it "cannot be established by combining the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention,
absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id. Here, it is our
opinion that the applied prior art does not contain motivation
for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified the reflective central
portion of the reflective marker of Bright Eyes to include a
plurality of flat reflective side wall surfaces. In fact, the
advantages of utilizing a plurality of flat reflective side
wall surfaces in a reflective marker having a non-reflective
flat top and bottom cap portions parallel to each other and
overhanging the reflective flat side wall surfaces of the
central portion are not appreciated by the prior art applied
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007