Appeal No. 96-2477
Application 08/345,292
Appellant argues that Hall’s single-engine design is
incompatible with the tandem-engine arrangements of Henrichsen
and Sanders because Hall lacks accommodation for Henrichsen’s
struts and close-coupled engines or Sander’s relatively large
winglet 2 and stays 3. This argument is not well taken. In
order to justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not necessary that a
device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the
device shown in the other. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, the artisan is not
compelled to blindly follow the teachings of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgement. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881,
889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant’s arguments directed to the individual
deficiencies of the applied references, such as Hall being
directed to a single-engine propulsion module, and the failure of
Henrichsen and Sanders to disclose a fuel compartment in the
portions thereof that might be termed the propulsion module, are
noted. However, nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when, as here, the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007