Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
Applying the test for obviousness, this panel of the4
board makes the determination that it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art, from a combined
consideration of the applied patents, to provide the screen 30
of Sheets with an appropriate support member. As we see it,
the incentive on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art
for providing a
support member would have simply been to gain the expected and
recognized benefit thereof, as exemplified by the teaching of
Kirkpatrick, i.e. the benefit of support of the screen within
the flame to enable the screen to perform its indicated
function
of reducing NO . For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1
x
is affirmed. It follows that the rejection of claims 2 and 3
is likewise affirmed since these claims stand or fall with
The test is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be4
bodily incorporated into the 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 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).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007