Appeal No. 98-1252 Page 13
Application No. 08/642,184
examiner's combination of Paulson and Grussmark would result in
two dental floss holders, we must point out that all of the
features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, at
642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881) and the artisan is not compelled to
blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the
other without the exercise of independent judgment (Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ
1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we do not believe
that one of ordinary skill in this art, in following the
combined teachings of Paulson and Grussmark, would be so
unskilled as to provide the modified device of Paulson with two
dental floss dispensers as the appellant would have us believe.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Paulson and
Grussmark.
Rejection (4)
The examiner relies upon the combined teachings of Paulson
and Grussmark in the manner set forth above in Rejection (3),
and further concludes that it would have been obvious to form
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007