Appeal No. 97-1777
Application 08/328,708
The test for obviousness, however, is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Here, Wigington’s disclosure of a ladder mounting
apparatus having interior braces or cross-rails would have furnished the artisan with ample
suggestion to provide the Aarons apparatus with interior cross-rails, suitably shaped in
conformance with Aaron’s cross-members 11, 12, to improve its strength and stability. As
so modified, the Aarons apparatus would meet all of the limitations in claims 8 through 11.
In summary and for the above reasons, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1 through 11 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007