Appeal No. 2001-0079
Application No. 09/092,702
Oda references do not recognize Appellants’ realized advantage
from the claimed snap fit connection of achieving a secure fit
between the chassis and the shell of the dispensing device
without providing a true hermetic seal. We would point out,
however, that it is not necessary that references be combined for
the same reason as Appellants. The reason or motivation to
modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done,
but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It
is not necessary that the prior art suggest the same advantage or
result discovered by Appellants. See In re Linter, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d
688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
We would further point out that, although Appellants’
arguments rely on the achieved result of avoiding the need for a
connection with a true hermetic seal, no such requirement appears
in rejected claims 7 and 19. In our view, Appellants’ arguments
improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly
adding disclosed limitations which have no basis in the claim.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007