Appeal No. 2000-0339 Page 5
Application No. 08/911,933
“[T]o establish obviousness based on a combination of the
elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some
motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of
making the specific combination that was made by the
applicant.”
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)(citing In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (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., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “The range of
sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007