Appeal No. 2007-0188 Page 7
Application No. 10/683,789
presumed to be familiar with them.” In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 851, 146
USPQ 183, 186 (CCPA 1965).
Prima facie obviousness based on a combination of references requires
that the prior art provide “a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor
to combine those references.” Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may
flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the
problem to be solved. . . . The range of sources available, however,
does not diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That is, the
showing must be clear and particular.
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that Diehl and Springer teach a wearable
article within the scope of Appellants’ claimed invention with the exception of
detecting a substance that is not a hydrogen ion. However, we disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that Ponce and Rittersdorf make up for the deficiencies in
Diehl and Springer.
Ponce’s study questions the dependability attributed to presumptive tests
for the presence of blood in a sample under forensic investigation. Ponce, page
2. More particularly, Ponce’s study was concerned about the presence of
contaminants in a blood sample that may prevent the achievement of a positive
test result. Id. Ponce suggests that different reagents are capable of detecting
different concentrations of blood in a sample and that the level of detection may
be adversely affected by the presence of contaminants. Ponce does not suggest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013