Appeal No. 1995-5010
Application 08/116,261
analogous art. Next, Appellant further argues a lack of an
express teaching or suggestion in either Takahashi or Sakurai
to combine the two references [brief, page 13]. This argument
is misplaced. We note that while there must be some teaching,
reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine existing elements
to produce the claimed device, it is not necessary that the
cited references or prior
art specifically suggest making the combination (see B.F.
Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems 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)) as
Appellant would apparently have us believe. 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,
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007