Appeal No. 2001-0401 Page 6
Application No. 09/019,451
references themselves must provide some teaching whereby the
appellants' combination would have been obvious. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (citations omitted). That is, something in the prior
art as a whole must suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination. See In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In determining obviousness/nonobviousness, an invention must
be considered "as a whole," 35 U.S.C. § 103, and claims must
be considered in their entirety. Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Claims 1, 17 and 25
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Gonzales discloses a fishing cart. As shown in Figures
1-2, the fishing cart includes spaced parallel supporting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007