Appeal No. 1999-2101 Page 7
Application No. 08/929,012
To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in
the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art and not from the appellant's disclosure. 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).
We agree with the appellant that Gerber '572 fails to disclose or teach a computer
aided design system in which data is continuously received and a marker is continuously
generated during the cutting operation, which marker includes the required "specific length
value" that is then passed as an instruction to the carriage coupling mechanism so that bites
of material are advanced of sufficient length as to insure that all of the pattern pieces can be
cut therefrom. As we understand the Gerber ‘572 system, data is received and a marker is
generated from that data, after which the pattern pieces are cut from a bite of material of
predetermined length. The shortcomings of Gerber ‘572 with regard to the claimed subject
matter are not alleviated by consideration of the teachings of the other four applied references,
for all of them fall into the same category of machine, described by the appellant as generating
"static" marker instructions which, once established, are not "continuously" generated. This
being the case, the artisan would not have been instructed by the references to generate a
marker that provides instructions to advance the material based upon the "continuous" receipt
of data as determined by the “specific length values.” It therefore is our conclusion that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007