Ex Parte Patullo et al - Page 22

              Appeal 2007-1315                                                                                              
              Application 09/828,437                                                                                        

         1        As to the Appellants’ argument that the combination would change the                                      
         2    principle of operation, citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA                                  
         3    1959), while Ratti held that a combination of references that would require a                                 
         4    substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown the prior art as well                           
         5    as a change in the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to                                 
         6    operate is not a proper ground for an obviousness rejection, 270 F.2d at 813, 123                             
         7    USPQ at 352, what Ratti was referring to was reconstruction and redesign of how                               
         8    all the elements interrelate in a manner relying on operational principles                                    
         9    unforeseeable to a person of ordinary skill.                                                                  
        10        In Ratti, claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion                          
        11    with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing                                
        12    member.  The primary reference relied upon in a rejection based on a combination                              
        13    of references disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was                                     
        14    reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing.  Its seal was incompressible and the                          
        15    device required rigidity for operation, whereas the claimed invention required                                
        16    resiliency.                                                                                                   
        17        But Jones’ processing travel requests based on a user's travel destination goal                           
        18    (FF 03), coupled with Among’s managing a tour product purchase (FF 10), would                                 
        19    not do such violence to the operating principles of Jones.  Modifications by                                  
        20    substitution, even if they omit the subject matter portion which a prior art patentee                         
        21    apparently regarded as his contribution to the art along with such advantages as it                           
        22    might provide, where the modified apparatus is obvious in view of the prior art and                           
        23    where the retained portion of the subject matter will operate on the same principles                          
        24    as before, “are not authority for holding a rejection improper under such                                     
        25    circumstances.”  In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31, 160 USPQ 734, 738                                      

                                                            22                                                              


Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013