Appeal No. 96-4194
Application 08/239,732
Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 6 through 8)
concerning the shortcomings in the teachings of each of the
applied references are not convincing of the nonobviousness of
the claimed invention because one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking the references individually where the rejection
is based on a combination of references. The test for
obviousness 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 the skilled artisan. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 4 through 10) to the
contrary notwithstanding, we are of the opinion that the
examiner has presented convincing lines of reasoning for
replacing the movable lamp of Everroad with a multifaceted
mirror as taught by West for the advantage of rapidly and
uniformly scanning a surface for holes (Answer, pages 3, 5 and
6), and for replacing a human observer as taught by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007