Appeal No. 2001-1541 Page 10
Application No. 09/094,297
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id. Here, after reviewing
the teachings of the applied prior art we conclude that the
applied prior art contains no suggestion or motivation to
combine their teachings in the manner set forth in this
rejection.
Instead, it appears to us that the examiner relied on
hindsight in reaching the obviousness determination. However,
our reviewing court has said, "To imbue one of ordinary skill
in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no
prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest
that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007