Appeal No. 95-2533
Application No. 08/018,125
(3), while at the same time providing a perfect
obturation inside of said cone. [See translation, line
22 of page 5 through line 1 of page 6; emphasis ours.]
The appellant also makes much of the fact that the
obturation in Ashton occurs in a cylindrical bore whereas the
obturation in the French patent occurs in a forcing cone. We
observe, however, the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. 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 applying
this test, all of the features of the secondary reference need
not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference (Keller,
642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881) and the artisan is not
compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881,
889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, we share the
examiner’s view that a combined consideration of Ashton and the
French patent would have fairly suggested to the artisan to
substitute in Ashton for his obturator the liquid-filled
obturator of the French patent in order to achieve the French
patent’s expressly stated advantage of providing an obturator
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007