Appeal No. 99-0638 Page 5
Application No. 08/679,023
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 12
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner expressly
concedes that the vibration canceler of Wolf is not in at
least two pieces (answer, page 4). In rejecting the claims,
the examiner states that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellants'
invention to make the vibration canceler of Wolf of at least
two pieces as taught by Hladky "so that it would be easier to
assemble the vibration canceler on the shaft" (answer, page
4).
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007