ZHOU et al. V. KEAGY et al. - Page 31




                                                                                  Interference No. 104,649            
                                                                                               Page No. 28            
                    ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification since doing                  
                    so would produce a thinner, more compact device as suggested by Sibbald.                          
             (Paper No. 24, p. 20).                                                                                   
                    It is well settled that "aprimafacie case of obviousness is established when the teachings        
             from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of       
             ordinary skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)         
             (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). Any                        
             incentive, reason or motivation to modify the prior art references must flow from some teaching          
             in the art that suggests the desirability of making the modification needed to arrive at the claimed     
             invention. In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed Cir. 1995); In re                   
             Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986-87, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cit. 1991). ("When it is necessary              
             to select elements of various teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain             
             whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by the         
             applicant. [Citations omitted] ...The extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or              
             may be fairly inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts of each case, in light of the       
             prior art and its relationship to the applicant's invention.").                                          
                    As the moving party, Zhou has the burden of proof to show that it is entitled to the relief       
             sought in the motion. 37 CFR § 1.637(a). On the facts presented, Zhou has failed to demonstrate          

             that Sibbald suggests replacing its prism strip 44 with the prism sheet taught by Cobb. At best,         
             Sibbald teaches that the use of a Fresnel prism strip 44 allows for a more compact device than an        

             embodiment that employed a single prism 24. (See, e.g., ZX 2012, Figures 2 and 3 and col. 5,             
             lines 1-5). Thus, Sibbald already teaches the use of the prism strip and the replacement of              







Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007