Appeal No. 98-1238
Application No. 08/115,187
position and support wires between a pair of wall structures
(see Figs. 1 and 2). Applying the test for obviousness as 6
set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981), we are convinced that the combined teachings
of Hubbard and Knell would have fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in this art to modify the method of Hubbard by
positioning and supporting wire, rather than pipe.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hubbard in view of Knell as applied in claim
8 above, and further in view of Brislin. Brislin teaches that
when wall material is placed on support structures in order to
form a completed wall, openings are formed in the wall
material in order to accommodate wiring that has been
positioned and supported in the interior of the wall.
Accordingly, it would further have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art when performing the method of
Hubbard, as modified by Knell, to complete the wall by (a)
6The 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 those of ordinary
skill in the art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007