Appeal No. 2002-1710 Page 9
Application No. 09/023,441
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 to combine flows from the references themselves.
Although Sasaki does not specifically mention downloading an operating system to its
printer, the reference invites "changes, modifications and improvements, which may
occur to those skilled in the art. . . ." Col. 11, ll. 41-43.
For its part, Kashiwazaki "exemplifies downloading of a new analyzer (emulation
program)," col. 11, 33-34, to a printer. The appellants characterize the reference's
analyzers/emulation programs as "operating systems in a printer." (Appeal Br. at 8.)
Kashiwazaki explains that it downloads an operating system "to easily cope with a
printer language incompatible with an apparatus of the present invention without adding
a new circuit to this apparatus." Col. 11, ll. 34-37. Because Sasaki invites modifications
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007