Appeal No. 96-3106
Application 08/052,015
would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention, to interconnect the first
electrodes in Sutrina as taught by Granberg, to improve power
dissipation capabilities and achieve compact package [Answer,
page 4 to 5].
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in the cited
art to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
Examiner. Appellants further argue that, even if combinable,
the suggested combination does not meet the invention claimed
in claim 1. Appellants contend that to make the Examiner-
suggested interconnection in Sutrina using Granberg teaching
would render Sutrina's device inoperative [Brief, pages 8 to
11].
We note that while combining references, there does not
have to be an express suggestion in a single reference to
achieve the combination. Rather, it is what the collective
teaching of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art about the combination. See In re
Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981);
In re Andros, 988 F.2d 131, 28
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007