Ex Parte Anderson - Page 6



               Appeal No. 2006-2060                                                               Page 6                          
               Application No. 10/605,873                                                                                            
               of the problem solved by the claimed invention, or to the knowledge of one of                                         
               ordinary skill in the art.”); and Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1337-38                                      
               (“the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a                                     
               whole, rather than expressly stated in the references”).  In fact, an explicit teaching                               
               that identifies and selects elements from different sources and states that they                                      
               should be combined in the same way as in the invention at issue, is rarely found in                                   
               the prior art.  Johnston, 435 F.3d at 1385, 77 USPQ2d at 1790-91.                                                     
                       As such, we examined whether the prior art explicitly or implicitly                                           
               suggested the claimed combination.  “’The test for an implicit showing is what the                                    
               combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of                                  
               the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary                                         
               skill in the art.’”   Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re                                      
               Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).                                                  
                       The appellant argues that the cutters in English operate differently from the                                 
               cutting edge of Bowes, and as such, it is “highly unlikely that a person of ordinary                                  
               skill in the art would see an obvious combination of the two patents.”  (Appellant’s                                  
               Reply Brief, p. 4).  With regard to the operation of English, the appellant argues                                    
               that the capsule has no cutting edge between the cutters (12) and instead requires                                    
               the user to rotate the cutters (12) to cut the partition (4) away from flange (4).                                    
               (Appellant’s Reply Brief, p. 3).  With regard to Bowes, the appellant argues that                                     
               the cutting edge (29) of the cutting cylinder (27) operates by first piercing the flat                                
               bottom (16) at the one lowest point and then proceeds to cut around the edge of the                                   
               flat bottom (16) because of its cylindrical shape.  (Appellant’s Reply Brief, p. 4).                                  
               While we recognize these differences in the operation of the two cutting                                              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007