Appeal No. 96-2635
Application 07/993,050
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 respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
this review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
respective 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. 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 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 1976).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007