Appeal No. 2005-1379
Application 09/734,601
which are the same size, each chemical element being represented by one piece for the purposes
of facilitating arrangement of the shapes into a periodic table,” and Gaines is relied on for the
“teaching of cubic shapes representing the elements” (id., pages 4-5). The examiner argues, with
respect to claim 6, that “[t]he shape of the periodic chart was well known at the time of filing the
present application” and “Midgley discloses in Figure 6 that its device comprises a periodic chart
having” arrays (id., pages 5-6). On this basis, the examiner maintains the position that the
combined teachings of Midgley and Gaines would have suggested the claimed invention.
We find that Midgley would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a teachings
aid that is “in the form of a wall chart periodic table” as shown in Midgley FIGs. 6 and 7, which
chart “embodies a modified, simplified periodic table,” and that “the same arrangement can be
used with a standard periodic table” (col. 3, ll. 37-43; see also col. 1, ll. 26-35). We further find
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred from the teachings of Midgley that the
chart would be useful if laid on a table, and indeed, an element identification card 25, containing
the symbol of an element, can be attached to the appropriate position in the chart in such position
(col. 3, ll. 44-50, and col. 2, ll. 54-62).6 We further find that Gaines would have disclosed a
system in which the atoms and simple elementary bodies known at that time to be useful are
assigned numbers based on hydrogen and represented by cubes for each element, the cube at
least marked by the number assigned to the atom or elementary body and sized to represent the
weight thereof (page 1, cols. 1 and 2). Gaines teaches that the cubes are stored in compartments
in a box, the lid of which is provided with trays or shelves to hold the cubes arranged to
represent chemical combinations (id.).
We find in the combined teachings of Midgley and Gaines substantial evidence in
support of the examiner’s position that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 5
and 6, as we have interpreted these claims above, would have been obvious over this
combination of references to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). We agree with the examiner that appellant’s arguments with respect to Gaines do not
6 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007