Appeal No. 96-3395 Page 9
Application No. 08/347,900
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Here, the examiner has not asserted that the features of
Sanford and Morabito may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of Spencer -- such an assertion would be irrelevant.
Instead, he has asserted that the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the appellant’s invention. Therefore, the appellant’s
argument "ignores the relevant combined teachings of the
references." In re Andersen, 55 CCPA 1014, 391 F.2d 953, 958,
157 USPQ 277, 281 (CCPA 1968) (dismissing the argument that a
combination would result in inoperative structure because it
is not necessary that the structure of one substituted bodily
in that of the reference with which it is combined).
Regarding claim 1, the appellant argues that the claim
“is not shown by the alleged combination of Spencer with
Morabito and Sanford, either singly or in combination.”
(Appeal Br. at 12.) “There is no connection,” (Id.), he
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007