Appeal No. 1999-2720 Application No. 08/580,965 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We agree with Appellant's assertion17 that no one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Tichy and Ambriola at the time the invention was made, as the references are contradictory and teach away from each other. One important indicium of non-obviousness is "teaching away" from the claimed invention by the prior art. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 784, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The present references are replete with evidence teaching away from the combination for the claimed invention. First, Tichy states18 "The naive solution would be to store complete copies for the tips of all branches. Clearly, 17Brief, pages 4-6, and Reply Brief, pages 2-3 18Page PSD:13-5, Section 3.2, paragraph 4 18Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007