Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
of an extractor as taught by Bubley. None of the above
arguments are persuasive.
As to the first argument, it is not a requirement for
obviousness that the motivation to combine references be found
exclusively in the primary reference. Instead, the requisite
motivation to combine may stem from teachings, suggestions or
inferences in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See,
for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 825 (1988). In the present case, the motivation to
combine comes
from Bubley’s recognition of a problem associated with the use
of ultraviolet light to cure articles and with Bubley’s
solution to
that problem. Concerning the second argument, so long as some
motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided
by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require
that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007