Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
(4) Claims 22, 24, 25 and 28 as being unpatentable over Loggins in view of Nichols and
Anderson; and
(5) Claims 23, 26 and 29 as being unpatentable over Loggins in view of Martin and Anderson.
The examiner's rejections are explained on pages 4-10 of the answer. The arguments of the
appellant and examiner may be found on pages 4-13 of the amended brief and pages 10-19 of the
answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as described in the specification, the
appealed claims, the prior art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced by the
appellant in the amended brief and by the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review, we
will sustain the rejections of claims 13-17, 21-26, 28 and 29. We will not, however, sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
Initially, we note that in order to establish obviousness under § 103 it is not necessary that the
cited references must specifically suggest making the claimed combination. See, e.g., B.F. Goodrich
Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Instead,
the issue of obviousness is not only determined by what the references expressly state but also is deter-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007