Appeal No. 20006-1116
Application No. 10/450,439
admittedly known cooling process taught in Suzuki need not be the
same as the one contemplated by the appellants so long as it is
sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art, as here,
to modify the admittedly known cooling process in the claimed
manner. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 1992)(“As long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
whole, the law does not require that the references be combined
for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”); In re Gershon,
372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 604-05 (CCPA 1967)(“We think it
is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what
appellants have done, although an underlying explanation of
exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the
expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested
in the cited references.”).
In any event, we determine that only simple observation is
required to determine the external clogging problem of the
external clogging of the atomizer port caused by polymerization
in the admittedly known cooling process is not known in the art.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007