Ex Parte DARNELL et al - Page 11


                 Appeal No.  2001-0121                                                         Page 11                    
                 Application No.  08/212,185                                                                              
                                                                                                                         
                         peculiar to a particular art should also be supported and the                                    
                         appellant similarly given the opportunity to make a challenge.  See                              
                         In re Spormann, 53 CCPA 1375, 363 F.2d 444, 150 USPQ 449                                         
                         (1966). …                                                                                        
                         Typically, it is found necessary to take notice of facts which may be                            
                         used to supplement or clarify the teaching of a reference                                        
                         disclosure, perhaps to justify or explain a particular inference to be                           
                         drawn from the reference teaching.  The facts so noticed serve to                                
                         "fill in the gaps" which might exist in the evidentiary showing made                             
                         by the examiner to support a particular ground for rejection.  We                                
                         know of no case in which facts judicially noticed comprised the                                  
                         principal evidence upon which a rejection was based….                                            
                         While a person of ordinary skill in the art may possess the requisite                            
                 knowledge and ability to modify the protocol taught by Fu, the modification is not                       
                 obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.  In re                      
                 Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 211 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                         
                 Obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of                           
                 the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there are some teachings,                           
                 suggestions, or motivations to do so found either in the references themselves or                        
                 in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See In re                     
                 Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                         
                         On this record there is no suggestion in the prior art to modify Fu in a                         
                 manner to obtain appellants’ claimed invention.  Instead, the only suggestion to                         
                 modify Fu comes from the examiner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the                          
                 art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to modify Fu                          
                 in a manner to obtain appellants’ claimed invention.  In this regard, we note as                         
                 set forth in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,                         
                 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983):                                                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007