Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 18
Application No. 08/442,816
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. 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 expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In
this case, however, Johnson specifically teaches that a
problem exists with prior antitheft devices such as the
locking mechanism of Moore U.S. Pat. No. 3,462,982 (see column
1, lines 41-50) and that his device presents a formidable
obstacle to a potential theft (see column 5, lines 49-54). In
that the locking mechanism of Moore is a ratcheting device 6
similar to that disclosed in Damon, it is our opinion that
6Copy attached.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007