Appeal No. 2005-0394 Page 7 Application No. 08/940,692 As set forth in In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000): A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field. … Close adherence to this methodology is especially important in cases where the very ease with which the invention can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.” … Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. … Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. … However, identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention. … Rather, to establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant. [citations omitted] In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, … with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000). On this record, the examiner has provided, and we find no evidence of a suggestion in the prior art to screen for cells having the specific growth rate set forth in appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 23-27, 29-31, 33-38, 42, 44, 46, 49 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frost, Holms, Ingrahm and Saier.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007