Appeal 2006-1849 Application 10/387,139 that the Examiner may “properly rely . . . on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner must establish motivation by showing a “need” or some deficiency in Christians’ integrated environmental control system that is fulfilled by Hipsky’s environmental control system. Appellants appear to require an explicit motivation from the references themselves for the combination to be proper. The aforenoted authority does not support such a requirement. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has improperly combined references based solely on whether the references “may be” or “could be” combined. While it is improper to combine references simply because they “could be” combined, In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990), that is not the situation in this appeal. Rather, in this appeal, the Examiner has demonstrated that by the combination of Hipsky’s second turbine with an air cycle machine in Christians’ integrated environmental control system, a cheaper and more efficient aircraft environmental control system results such that implicit motivation for the combination stems from the universal desire to improve a product (i.e., environmental control systems). Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368. Additionally, the Examiner has established that using a second turbine in an aircraft environmental control system is commonly known in the art such that no additional evidence of motivation for the combination of Hipsky’s second turbine with an air cycle machine in Christians’ integrated environmental control system is required. Id. 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007