Appeal 2006-3116
Application 10/809,140
985-89, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-38 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A reference may be
said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 [31
USPQ2d 1130, 1131], (Fed. Cir. 1994))); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,
73 USPQ2d 1141, 1145-46 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art “disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Sawhney and Tanabe with Appellants’ countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 8 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007