Appeal No. 2002-2118 Page 13
Application No. 09/010,614
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have removed
Ikesugi's connector placement member 1 by inserting an associated tool into the
intervening space 12 and prying the connector placement member 1 from the electrical
connector 2 as such would only require a simple tool in order to remove the connector
placement member 1 from the electrical connector 2 effectively.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 10-11) that claim 6 is patentable over Ikesugi
since the examiner has not cited a reference that teaches the claimed step. We agree.
Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference 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, see Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630
(Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996),
although "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the pertinent
references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir.
1998). The range of sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement for
actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R.
Bard Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007