Appeal No. 2005-1149
Application No. 09/855,235
negatived, and would not have been ignored by those skilled in
this art, simply because figure 3 of Andrieu depicts the generic
symbol for a diode rather than the symbol for a Schottky diode
specifically. Indeed, such a specific symbol would have been
inappropriate since Andrieu’s column 6 teaching of a Schottky
diode is by way of example only.
We are also unpersuaded by the appellants’ argument that it
would not have been obvious for an artisan to combine the applied
reference teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner. For
example, an artisan would have provided Andrieu’s system and
method with the specific type of modified lithium-carbon
batteries taught by Kawano or Maeda (which correspond to those
defined by the appealed claims), based upon a reasonable
expectation of success, particularly in light of Andrieu’s
teaching of lithium-carbon batteries generally as suitable for
use in his invention (see lines 48-51 in column 2). See In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir.
1988)(for obviousness under Section 103, all that is required is
a reasonable, not absolute, expectation of success).
Additionally, we find no convincing support for the
appellants’ allegation that the examiner has not addressed the
features of certain appealed claims such as dependent claims
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007