Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 15
Application No. 08/316,685
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ
137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus, it follows that the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16
and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
The obviousness issues
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but not the rejection of claims 5
through 8, 12 and 17.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the 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).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007