Appeal No. 1998-1426
Application No. 08/315,350
have viewed Bliss and Durkop as being reasonably pertinent to
the problem confronted by appellants (a point which we find to
be highly questionable), we must agree with appellants that
there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied
references which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the teachings of Bliss with those of Durkop in
the manner urged by the examiner. Unlike the examiner
(answer, page 5), we do not consider that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
employed the insulation teaching of Bliss, et. al. between the
inner and outer tanks of the device of Durkop[.]" In this
regard, we direct particular attention to appellants'
arguments found on pages 2 through 7 of the supplemental reply
brief (Paper No. 23) and incorporate the same herein as
expressing our own view of the examiner's attempted
combination of Durkop and Bliss.
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007