Appeal No. 1999-1534 Page 7
Application No. 08/799,210
reasons: (1) so that the locking collar can retain its locking
characteristics much better under humid conditions, (2) so
that the locking collar can be reused, and (3) economy in the
manufacturing of the locking collars.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See 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
evaluating 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).
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
agree with the examiner's determinations of obviousness as set
forth on pages 2-3 of the final rejection. In that regard, we
conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007