Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
For this reason we will sustain the rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as well as the like
rejection of claims 5 and 6, which are dependent therefrom.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 14 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Olmstead. The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made. See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft
Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). While there must be some suggestion or motivation
for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of
the references, it is not necessary that such be found within the
four corners of the references themselves; a conclusion of
obviousness may be made from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint
or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416
F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Olmstead discloses a grommet for closing a penetration hole
through a panel. It comprises a main soft member of elastomeric
material and a rigid member of non-elastomeric material which is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007