Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
respectively).
Moreover, even when we read claim 1 on the Trammell
device in the manner proposed by the examiner, Poppendiek’s
teaching that a suction force may be applied to a hood fitted
over the head of a patient to promote the flow of exhalant
gases therefrom would have provided ample suggestion to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide a tube in the opening 34
of Trammel to provide for positive evacuation of exhaled gases
from the hood. In this regard, there is no requirement in the
test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that the motivation
for combining reference teachings be expressly articulated or
suggested by the prior art. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Instead, the
suggestion for combining the reference teachings may be an
implied suggestion. See, for example, Cable Electric
Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Sernaker, supra.
Appellant makes much of the fact that Trammell does not
disclose or suggest accommodating an anesthesia circuit
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007