Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 12
Application No. 08/607,886
applicant's coplanar, single unit, post and panel
combination being assembled into a wall. [See page
11 of the amendment filed on September 25, 1995
(Paper No. 5) of the parent application.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellant's arguments. In order
to establish obviousness under § 103, it not necessary that all
of the features of the secondary reference be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)) 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)). Here,
the secondary reference to Collins is merely being used as a
suggestion to center the panel relative to the mounting post as
claimed.
In summary:
The examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 10-14 and 18-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
New rejections of claims 1, 2 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and claims 1-5, 12-14 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
have been made.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007