Appeal No. 96-0776
Application 07/953,539
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)). This is not to say,
however, that the claimed invention must expressly be suggested
in any one or all of the references, rather, the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected as being obvious over Spinner
in view of Bellis. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and therefore
inherits the separable and removable features recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 is an independent claim which also includes these two
limitations. The Spinner reference has been discussed above.
Bellis is cited for its teaching of placing an O-ring in a groove
in the inner part of the seal "to provide a secure attachment"
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007