Appeal No. 2000-0431 Page 11
Application No. 08/789,127
(Appeal Br. at 36.) They further argue, “the motivation to
combine Nakamura and Bancroft is wholly lacking.” (Id. at 58.)
“‘[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.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007