Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 11
Application No. 08/839,843
purpose of enhancing adhesion." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The
appellants argue, "the Examiner has not provided any motivation
for a person skilled in the art to take selective teachings from
Saito and Drake and make Appellants' invention obvious." (Appeal
Br. at 21.)
“‘[T]he question is whether there is something in the prior
art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination.’” In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
combine may flow from the prior art references themselves, the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases,
from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . .” In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007