Appeal 2007-1488
Application 10/809,072
1 skill in the art to modify Burd’s system with a seed crystal as shown in
2 Monte ‘468 or Monte ‘469 in order to ensure the growth of only a single
3 crystal, thereby reducing the scrap rate.
4 Applicants argue that “Burd never even mentions the possibility of
5 using a seed crystal.” (Br. 8.) This argument is unpersuasive. The
6 Examiner acknowledged this difference but relied on the Monte references
7 to account for the difference. Applicants’ argument ignores the collective
8 teachings of the prior art as the evidentiary basis for the Examiner’s
9 rejection. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
10 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
11 reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
12 reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
13 any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
14 teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
15 in the art.”).
16 Applicants appear to be urging an incorrect standard of obviousness
17 (“lack of suggestion in the prior art of the desirability of combining
18 references”). (Br. 11; see also R. Br. 2-3.) The Supreme Court has recently
19 disapproved such a rigid approach to obviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741.
20 Here, seed crystals have been used in the prior art in similar systems, as
21 shown in the Monte references. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the
22 art would have reasonably predicted that the use of a seed crystal in Burd
23 would provide similar advantages and results as reported in the Monte
24 references. Applicants have not shown anything beyond what would have
25 been expected by a person skilled in the art.
26
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013