Appeal No. 96-3392
Application 08/121,512
teach a one-component developer. This does not address the
examiner's reasoning that one-component developers were well
known in the image forming art and that it would have been
obvious to apply the bias application control technique of
Kurokawa to a one-component developer for the purpose of
solving the same contamination problem. The express teachings
of a reference are not determinative of obviousness, which
must be viewed by the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in
the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art). The reason,
suggestion, or motivation for a modification may come from
what is known to the person of ordinary skill as well as from
a specific teaching in a reference. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1448, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(Nies, C.J., concurring) ("I believe it would better reflect
the concept of obviousness to speak in terms of 'from the
prior art' rather than simply 'in the prior art.' The word
'from' expresses the idea of the statute that we must look at
obviousness issue through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007