Appeal No. 95-4673
Application 08/097,759
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner's above-noted rejections of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained. 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. Prods. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (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
review, and thus by this Board, is that "[a] prima facie case
of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art." In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007