Appeal No. 97-3065 Page 13
Application No. 08/452,747
coating applied to the first and second rotary transport
devices using a high temperature application process).6
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 68, 70, 71, 73 to 76, 79, 83 and 96 to 98 are 7
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ales
in view of Plasma.
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). 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
6This rejection would be overcome by amending "substrate
is" in claim 98 to be --outer working surfaces are--.
7Claim 98 has been included in this rejection based upon
our belief that the appellants will amend claim 98 as proposed
above to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007