Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
desirability of a combination under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However,
contrary to appellant’s position, we do not believe that it is
necessary that a device shown in one reference must be
physically inserted into the device shown in the other, or
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any
one or all of the applied references. Rather, the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have fairly suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
With respect to claims 11 and 12 of the present case,
given the disclosure in Morozov that the soft pad (6) therein
should be of “porlon type” (translation, page 3), i.e, made of
a soft plastic foam material, the teaching in Oaks (col. 3,
lines 22-24) of a pad (23) formed of closed cell soft foam
rubber, and the teaching in Puckett of a pad formed of
ethylene vinyl acetate, we must agree with the examiner that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellant’s invention to form the pad (6) of
Morozov of a material of the type specified in appellant’s
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007