Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
specifically suggest making the combination (see B.F. Goodrich
Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583, 37
USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d
1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as the
appellants would apparently have us believe. Rather, the test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See 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 it 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).
Further, Appellants attack each of Lewis and Janz for not
having all the attributes that the Examiner alleged the
combination to possess, but Appellants do not argue how the
combination lacks the alleged attributes. The Examiner
states:
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007