Appeal No. 2002-0113
Application 08/799,923
In view of the above discussed teachings of the applied art,
we agree with the examiner that the combination of references
renders appellants’ claimed mapping method obvious.
That is, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use Murphy’s magnetic monitoring and
mapping method in Westermann's cathodic protection system to gain
the advantages stated by Murphy of remote detection and high
spatial resolution.
Furthermore, we note that the motivation to combine need not
be identical with appellants’ reasons. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d
688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by appellants’ argument
that the level of skill in the art is so low that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not know how to map multiple conductors
using magnetometers. Appellants have not provided such evidence,
and appellants’ own specification indicates that such mapping is
routine. See, e.g., the description of FEM analysis/mapping
found on pages 5, lines 7-12, and paragraph bridging pages 9-10
of appellants’ specification. Even though this description is
general, we found (as discussed above) the specification to be
enabling, especially in view of appellants’ admissions that, for
example, FEM analysis is routine. Hence, we determine that
mapping of multiple conductors is routine.
In summary, we find that because one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Wassermann and Murphy resulting in a system that permits
magnetometer mapping of cathodic protection currents, we agree
with the examiner that the subject matter of claims 1-15 would
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007