Appeal No. 96-3032
Application No. 08/321,392
established by what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
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 it4
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)), and
all of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for
what they fairly teach one having ordinary skill in the art
(In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)).
4More specifically, as stated by the court in Keller, 642
F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881:
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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007