Appeal No. 97-0767
Application No. 08/383,996
We are unpersuaded by the appellant’s arguments. While
there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to
combine existing elements to produce the claimed device (see,
e.g., ACS-Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), it not necessary
that the cited references or prior art specifically suggest
making the combination (B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking
Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500,
1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Rather the test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
one 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).
Here, Fox discloses a light-weight baseball bat useable by
children (page 1, line 7) to strike a ball including a striker
section 12 defined by a shell of thin, flexible synthetic plastic
film (i.e., a conventional two liter plastic beverage bottle as
disclosed on page 1, lines 50, 107, 108) which is threaded into a
handle section 10 (see Fig. 2). The artisan would reasonably
infer that the bottle forming the striker portion 12 of Fox was
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007