Appeal No. 1999-1080
Application No. 08/681,022
answer, while the complete statement of the appellants’
arguments can be found in the brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
After considering the collective teachings of Favre and
Moore, we must agree with the examiner that the invention set
forth in claims 17 through 20 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants’
invention.
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).
Claim 17, the sole independent claim, calls for a pump
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007