Appeal No. 98-2126 Page 8
Application No. 08/490,180
1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen,
851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Instead, obviousness may be established by what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. 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 evalu- 5
ating 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)), and all of the disclosures in a
reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one
5More specifically, as stated by the court in Keller, 642
F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007