Appeal No. 96-2143
Application 08/046,056
appel-lants’ specification and claims, the applied patents,4
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a con-
sequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 15, and
16.
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the con- 5
clusion that the low force actuator system of claim 9, and the
low force actuator of claims 15 and 16, would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art on the basis
of the combined teachings of Froeschle and Ivers. More
specifically, it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in
4In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have considered all of the
disclosure thereof for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only the
specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably have been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See 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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007