Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
combination (see B.F. Goodrich Co. v.
Aircraft Braking Sys. 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)) as the Appellants would
apparently have us believe. Rather, 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). Moreover, in evaluating such references, it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the references, but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Here, we are of the opinion that an artisan would have looked
to both Goss and Morgan to design a portable
encrypting/decrypting device to be used with a facsimile
system. Appellants have not successfully rebutted the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Therefore, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 14 over Goss and Morgan.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007