Appeal No. 98-1256
Application No. 08/599,934
mined by what they would fairly suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re DeLisle,
406 F.2d 1386, 1389, 160 USPQ 806, 808-09 (CCPA 1969) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,
1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549-50 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be 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 is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.
We now turn to the specific rejections before us for consideration.
Rejection (1)
With respect to claim 13, the appellant does not appear to contest the examiner's position that it
would have been obvious to locate the handle 34a of Loggins on the outrigger 28a (Fig. 1) or 28b (Fig.
2) in view of the teachings of Nichols. Instead, the appellant argues that the limitation of the outrigger
not extending from an end of the elongated member cannot be found in either Loggins or Nichols. We
are at a loss to understand such a contention. As the examiner has correctly noted on page 4 of the
answer, Loggins in the embodiment of Fig. 1 teaches an elongated member 24a and in the embodiment
of Fig. 2 an elongated member 24b. In both embodiments the outriggers (28a in the embodiment of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007