Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
the combination. B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking
Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d
1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Instead, the test for obvious-
ness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those 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).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the references
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). It is also well
settled that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
the references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck
& Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007