Appeal No. 2002-1469 Page 5
Application No. 09/317,110
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,
in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . ." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Imports Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, we find that evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine
flows from the references themselves. Off's "invention relates to point-of-sale systems
capable of handling discount coupons." Col. 1, ll. 22-23. Although the reference does
not mention generating rainchecks for its coupons in describing "a specific embodiment
of [its] invention," col. 14, ll. 19-20, we find that Off invites modifications thereto. To wit,
the reference asserts that "various modifications may be made. . . ." Col. 14, l. 22.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007