Appeal No. 2006-0004 Παγε 9
Application No. 09/497,359
invention taught is used against its teacher." Id. (quoting W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. See In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, every
element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. See id. However,
identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat
patentability of the whole claimed invention. See id. 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 appellants. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984). In the current appeal, there is just no motivation, suggestion or
teaching in the applied prior art that would have made it obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miller so
as to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007