Appeal No. 1998-2159 Page 6
Application No. 08/539,892
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984). In our view, the combined teachings of the 2
applied prior art would not have utilized Schantz's resistors
that act to vaporize ink to create the melting heat taught by
Takatsu but instead would have provided separate heating units
(such as the nichrome wire taught by Takatsu) to effect the
melting to bond/cement the portions of Schantz's printhead
together. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1-4.
CONCLUSION
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007