Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 13
Application No. 09/282,320
"The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F3d 1305,
1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A suggestion to combine teachings
from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references
themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of
the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355,
51 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47
USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Here, "FIG. 5 [of Baumgarten] illustrates . . . [that] planar portion 36 of mirror 24
defines a hole 80 for allowing videocamera 70 to shoot directly through hole 80 to the
user." (Col. 6, ll. 1-4.) For its part, "FIG. 7 [of Janow] shows a side view of . . .
projection screen 105 in which transparent material 701 is positioned in hole 401." (Col.
5, ll. 50-52); "[t]ransparent material 701 may be a plug inserted into hole 401. . . ." (Id.
at ll. 54-55.) Because the latter reference explains that, with the hole plugged by the
transparent material, "[a]dvantageously, the projected image appears more uniform and
the existence of hole 401 is less apparent to a viewer of the projected image," (id. at ll.
43-45), we agree with the examiner's finding that those skilled in the art would have
been motivated to insert a transparent plug into Baumgarten's camera hole. Therefore,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007