Appeal No. 2001-2488
Application No. 09/368,455
invention which combines two known elements, “the question is
whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest
the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. [Citations omitted].” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221
USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Evidence of a suggestion,
teaching or motivation to combine may flow from the references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or
from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
As correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 10; Reply
Brief, pages 1-2), Lesieur fails to disclose or suggest any
problem with high temperature gradients. In contrast, Lesieur
teaches that his invention “can be operated at lower service
temperatures” than the currently available prior art assemblages
(col. 1, ll. 57-58; see also col. 4, ll. 20-23). Furthermore, as
also correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 10), Parker fails
to identify the gas turbine operating temperatures at which
thermal stress, fatigue, cracking and splitting occur.
The examiner reiterates that the motivation for the proposed
combination of references can be found in Parker at col. 1, ll.
33-40, where this reference teaches arrangement of the heat
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007