Appeal No. 2006-2450
Application No. 10/211,828
suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art, the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem
to be solved.” In re Huston 308 F.3d 1267, 1278, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1810 (Fed. Cir.
2002, citing In re Kotzab 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The examiner has not cited explicit statements from the art to support the combination of
the references. Further, considering the teachings of the two references we do not find
that the knowledge of one of skilled would lead to using Rogers’ teaching of the outer
ring fitting over the female member to redesign the two ring seal retainer of Smith which
fits inside the female member. Nor do we find that one would consider Rogers to more
accurately hold the seal, as we note that the seal (item 40) of Smith fits inside a recess of
the ring (item 50), which appears to be similar to Rogers’s method of holding the seal
(item 38) in the recess of the female member (item 10). Thus, we do not find that one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to produce the
claimed invention. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 through 21 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007