Appeal No. 1999-2523 Page 7
Application No. 08/475,791
In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, ... with
no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem Inc. v.
Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
At best, the statement of the rejection establishes that individual parts of
the claimed invention were known in the prior art, however, as appellant points
out (Reply Brief, page 3) “[t]he question is always whether the prior art teaches
or suggest the claimed combination, not whether a reference [or combination of
references] lists all of the ingredients.” On this record, we agree with appellant
that the prior art relied upon by the examiner fails to suggest appellant’s claimed
invention. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 57-62 and 64-67 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Malfroy-Camine alone or in
combination with Muller.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007