Appeal No. 1998-0785
Application No. 08/618,794
Obviousness can only be established by combining or
modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the
claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to do so found (1) either in the references
themselves or (2) in the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, we cannot find any suggestions in the applied art
that would have motivated one skilled in the art to alter
the process of Cranfill by incorporating the label of
Ritchey. Nor has the examiner based his reasoning on any
suggestions found in the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art. As appellants point out,
Cranfill uses a completely different process than Ritchey.
Cranfill uses a die to form a three-dimensional medallion.
Ritchey uses a stylus to melt layers of a label. These
disparate processes provide no desirability for the
combination, and we find that the examiner’s asserted
motivation to combine these references is based on improper
hindsight reasoning.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007