Appeal No. 1997-0411 Page 5 Application No. 08/441,658 the ‘Eight-In-One’ reference is contextually incompatible with the teachings of ‘The Print Shop’, ....” (Appeal Br. at 8.) The examiner replies, “it would have been readily obvious that the ‘Define Menu’ of ‘Eight-In-One’ would add flexible [sic] to ‘Print Shop’ to enable not only the direction of paper to be changed but also fonts to be changed.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) We disagree with the appellants. The appellants err in construing the criteria for obviousness. It is unnecessary that inventions of references be physically combinable to render obvious an invention. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1972) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference but what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007