Appeal No. 97-0149
Application 08/308,711
as set forth in In re Keller at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881, we
are of the opinion that a combined consideration of the relied
on references would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary
skill in this art to provide the pen of either Ellis or Mori
with (1) bodies which taper in thickness in view of the
teachings of Perlmutter and (2) bodies and caps which are
sized “substantially equal to a conventional credit card” in
view of the teachings Vinck. As to the appellant’s criticisms
of the references individually, 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. 1986).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007