Appeal No. 2001-0278
Application 09/069,002
We see no reason why the combination put forth by the Examiner is improper or
would not reasonably be expected to be successful by one of skill in the art. The
Appellants have argued a lack of motivation, but the motivation is both express in the
references and implied in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as specifically
referenced by the Examiner in the Examiner’s answer, page 7, last two lines (“one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to salvage the expensive composite
materials rather than discard them”).
The teaching, motivation or suggestion to combine or modify the references may
be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references.
See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d
1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The test for an implicit showing is what the combined
teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to
be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881 (and cases cited therein).
When the Board or an Examiner relies on an express or an implicit showing, it
must provide particular findings related thereto. We find that the references contain
express teachings and suggestions pointing to:
1) the use of ferromagnetic susceptors to inductively heat a pair of fiber
reinforced composite laminates and create a thermoplastic weld
(Kodokian, e.g. column 5, lines 33-62 and column 6 line 27 - column 7
line 7);
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007