Appeal No. 2002-0354 Page 8
Application No. 09/293,455
assembly, we find that a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine flows from the
references themselves.
Second, the appellant alleges, "to modify Dafler as suggested by Wrobel would
most likely render the bearing of Dafler inoperable." (Appeal Br. at 6.) Unfortunately,
he does not explain how Dafler would allegedly, "most likely," be rendered inoperable.
Moreover, “[w]hat appellant[] overlook[s] is that it is not necessary that the inventions of
the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958, 157 USPQ 277, 281 (CCPA
1968)). See also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1972)
("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures."). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference but what
the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Here, combining the teachings of Dafler and Wrobel does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures. The appellant’s argument overlooks “the relevant
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007