Appeal No. 95-2941 Page 4 Application No. 08/139,616 22, filed November 28, 1994) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed March 20, 1995) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded and will therefore not be sustained. Our reasoning for this determination follows. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 8 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share the appellant's view that thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007