Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
reasons, we find ample motivation for the skilled artisan to provide such a
capability in the system of Meunier.
In our view, the motivation to combine the references is strongly
suggested by the Eaton reference itself – namely the advantages achieved by
automatically updating the message originator as we noted previously. In any
event, it is well settled that the motivation to combine references need not be
expressly stated in the prior art references, but may be found in the knowledge of
the skilled artisan or from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Notably, when the source of motivation is not from
the prior art references, “the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an
explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be
applied.” DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1366. With these principles in mind, we find no
error in our explanation why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the references, particularly in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art – an electrical engineer with several years of related industry
experience.
Appellants also argue that the examiner’s interpretations of “specification”
and “specification coordinator” are unreasonable in light of the terms’ usage in
the specification [request, pages 4-6]. Appellants contend that the term
“specification” is not reasonably construed as a web document, but rather
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007