Appeal No. 1999-1735 Page 7
Application No. 08/745,978
In applying the test for obviousness, the examiner 2
reached the conclusion (answer, p. 4) that it would have been
obvious to have modified each of the principal references to
Hoenick and Rath to directly connect the outlet of the
respective pump to the pressure chamber of the piston/cylinder
arrangement as taught by Akita. Implicit in this rejection is
the examiner's view that the modifications of either Hoenick
or Rath by the teachings of Akita would result in an apparatus
which corresponds to the apparatus recited in the claims under
appeal in all respects.
The arguments advanced by the appellants (brief, pp. 6-
14) are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, the appellants argue the deficiencies of each
reference on an individual basis. However, it is well settled
that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
2The 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007