Appeal No. 96-1753
Application 08/063,202
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 14.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that the appellants have not argued
the merits of any particular claim apart from the others.
Therefore, all of the apparatus claims will stand or fall with
representative claim 1, and all of the method claims with
representative claim 15. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18
USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
All of the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
question under Section 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). While there
must be some suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings of 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007