Ex Parte Mazur - Page 12


             Appeal No.  2004-0394                                                       Page 12                     
             Application No.   09/915,467                                                                            
             alternatives may exist does not preclude the development of a new model that is                         
             obvious over the prior art.  See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13, 24 USPQ2d                       
             1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that an alternative to a well-entrenched theory                    
             does not preclude a finding of obviousness because the recommendation of a new                          
             system “does not require obliteration of another”).  For this same reason, we disagree                  
             with appellant’s assertion (Request, page 6), “if an inventor(s) truly believes they have               
             satisfied a long-felt need, they would appear disinclined to spend further effort on an                 
             already-completed task.”  On this record, the combination of prior art relied upon                      
             provides an obvious alternative to Gaull.                                                               
             VII.  The prior art relied upon provides a suggestion to combine:                                       
                    Appellant is correct (Request, page 5) in that a suggestion to combine must be                   
             identified in the prior art of record.  In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-44, 61 USPQ2d                    
             1430, 1433-1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  For the reasons set forth in the Decision, we believe                
             that a suggestion to combine is set forth in the prior art relied upon.  For his part,                  
             however, appellant fails to state with particularity the reason why he believes the                     
             Decision fails to identify a suggestion to combine the prior art relied upon.  37 CFR                   
             § 1.197(b).  To the contrary, the Decision recognizes (see e.g., bridging paragraph,                    
             pages 5-6):                                                                                             
                    “The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the                                  
                    references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.”  In re                     
                    Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  Based on                              
                    the evidence set forth above, we find that it would have been prima facie                        
                    obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was                   
                    made to package a contraceptive formulation and/or device together with                          
                    isotretinoin (Accutane), and label said composition according to the official                    
                    labeling information set forth in the PDR.                                                       
                                                                                                                    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007