Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/810,943
(mailed July 13, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed May 7, 2004) and reply brief (filed September 13, 2004)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007