Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
respectively (Finley 1, l. 86; West 1, l. 61), thus providing additional
motivation for the combination.
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Adkins, II’s disclosure
and Finley, West, or Bates disclosure to use “bolts,” “bolt-rods,” or “two
sided screw rods” to attach pipe flanges provide motivation for using “at
least one support rod [e.g., bolt] extending through at least two flanges”
(claim 5) to connect the exhaust pipe 21 and pipe adaptor 17 to the flanges
(13’ and 13”) of the fan housing 13, namely, to provide attachment of the
pipes to the fan housing. Such motivation comes from both the knowledge
of one of ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of the prior art noted
above. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). Furthermore, a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the
prior art, as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the
prior art as a whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336;
cited with approval in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 5
over Adkins, II in view of Finley, West, or Bates.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER LONGO, SR. IN VIEW OF
ADKINS, II
Appellants argue that there is no motivation for combining Adkins,
II’s solar-powered exhaust fan with Longo, Sr.’s method or apparatus for
removing methane from a landfill (Br. 5-6). Appellants contend that the
Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight in reaching his conclusion
that it would have been obvious to combine Adkins, II’s solar-powered
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013