Appeal No. 1998-2213
Application 08/655,863
combination would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, using one of Kurimura’s pressure monitoring devices
with each of Sugaya’s suction devices to detect the air leakage
discussed by Kurimura at each suction device.
Claim 7
The appellants argue that Kurimura’s apparatus is not
capable of determining an attracting state based upon a plurality
of attracting state parameters and controlling the apparatus
based upon the determined attracting states (brief, page 6).
Kurimura’s apparatus, however, is capable of control based upon a
plurality of attracting state parameters such as defects in the
slide specimen, dust on the slide specimen surface, and defects
in the specimen holding arm (col. 6, lines 34-60).
Claim 8
The appellants argue that Kurimura detects only leakage but
not an obstruction of the suction means (brief, page 6). The
inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, is not merely what
references expressly teach, but what inferences one of ordinary
skill in the art reasonably would draw from them. See In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007