Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
We are not persuaded by the appellants’ arguments. While
there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to
combine existing elements to produce the claimed device (see ACS-
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), it not necessary that
the cited references or prior art specifically suggest making the
combination (B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Systems
Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed.
Cir. 1988)). Rather the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Here, as the examiner has noted, Ranford teaches a neck
flange for positioning a tracheostomy tube 11 comprising a
flexible (column 3, line 5) neck engaging portion 30 and an
interconnection 20 having a ring shaped body with an opening 35
for surrounding the tracheostomy tube, with both the neck
engaging portion 30 and the interconnection 20 being molded from
a polymer (column 4, line 23). Thus, Ranford teaches all the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007