Appeal No. 2001-1514 Page 4
Application No. 08/874,805
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In the rejection of claim 1 (see Paper No. 24, pp. 2-3), the sole independent
claim on appeal, the examiner (1) set forth the teachings of Arkans and Mogaki;
(2) ascertained that Arkans' separate manifold 96 and connector member 124 is not a
unitary piece; and (3) determined that it would have been obvious to have incorporated
a unitary design in Arkans for many reasons including the teachings of Mogaki.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art of Arkans and Mogaki does not
suggest the subject matter of claim 1. We agree for the reasons that follow.
First, the limitation of claim 1 that the controller connection device comprises "a
manifold and a connector member integrally formed with said manifold as a unitary
piece" is not suggested by the applied prior art. As clearly recognized by the examiner,
Arkans does not meet or suggest this limitation. Moreover, Mogaki does not meet or
suggest this limitation. In that regard, as clearly shown in Figures 7, 9A and 9B of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007