Appeal No. 2002-0500 Page 9
Application No. 09/258,320
Second, the examiner finds, "it would have been obvious to a person skilled in
the art at the time of the invention to construct the frame-housing of AAPA with the
integral thrust supporter on the bottom face, as taught by Takahashi, to reduce the
number of components during assembly of the fan motor." (Supp. Examiner's Answer
at 10.) The appellants argue, "there is not explicit of teaching of reducing the number
of parts. The number of parts in Takahashi may, with respect to this particular
arrangement, be fewer, but it is far from clear that this would be obvious, given the
necessity for the specific mounting arrangement provided by Takahashi, which seems
more complicated and difficult to manufacture." (Reply Br. at 2.)
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). "'[T]he 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.'" In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). "[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007