Appeal 2007-0537
Application 10/102,902
(also a practice well known in the art). (FF 22.) Thus, Appellants’ only
arguable claimed contribution is the use of “fragment pairs” to simplify
identifying similar molecules. Given the teachings of Cornilescu, such
“fragment pairs” are in the prior art, at least as Appellants have broadly
defined this term. (FFs 1, 9, 10, 29.)
Appellants dispute the combination of Cornilescu and Gilhuijs. (App.
Br. 11.) According to Appellants, “these references are directed to different
problems and solutions” and are “completely unrelated.” (Id. at 11-12
(emphasis Appellants’).)
Gilhuijs is relied upon merely for its teachings of standard “computer
hardware used to display and input results.” (Answer 11 (citing Fig. 3); see
also FF 19.) In fact, in our view Gilhuijs is merely an example of many
such teachings in the art. (FF 27.) In any case, since both Gilhuijs and
Cornilescu relate to “studies of magnetic resonance of biological materials,”
Gilhuijs’s teachings would have been relevant to the skilled artisan utilizing
Cornilescu’s method on a computer. (FF 19.) Thus, the Examiner
appropriately combined these two references.
Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, Cornilescu would
have taught or suggested the invention of claim 1 to the skilled artisan.
Gilhuijs supplements Cornilescu’s teaching by providing an example of well
known computer hardware, including input and display means. (FF 19.)
Thus, we conclude the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious under
§ 103(a) based on Cornilescu and Gilhuijs.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013