Appeal No. 2004-2296
Application No. 10/017,031
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
Appellant submits that Mauritz “teaches away” from putting the relevant
components in one package. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085,
1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553,
31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appellant does not point out where Mauritz
might warn the artisan against “packaged” components, and we do not find such a
teaching. Cf. Para-Ordnance, 73 F.3d at 1090, 37 USPQ2d at 1241: “That the
Browning Hi-Power does not have a converging frame does not require a finding that it
‘teaches away.’ While it does not teach convergence, there is nothing about the
Browning Hi-Power to warn a person of ordinary skill against using convergence.”
Moreover, appellant’s arguments alleging a “teaching away” are not persuasive with
respect to claims 1 and 18 because appellant has not shown that the preamble
recitation of “packaged” represents a limitation that requires something different from
the teachings of Mauritz.
We find the remainder of appellant’s arguments to allege deficiencies in
individual references that have been applied, rather than addressing their combined
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007