Appeal No. 95-4588
Application 08/127,123
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of this review, we have made the determina-
tion that the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained. However, pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we have also entered a new ground of
rejection, infra, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
against the appealed claims. Our reasons follow.
The proper test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those
having ordinary skill in the art. See Cable Elec. Products,
Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-
887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The law followed by our court of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007