Appeal No. 1998-2815
Application No. 08/648,790
above noted modifications of Hayward would result in a method
and computer readable medium with program code which
corresponds to the claimed subject matter in claims 1-48 on
appeal.
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, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In this case, we are
in agreement with appellants that the combined teachings of
Hayward and Grilk simply fail to disclose or suggest any
aspect of respirator selection based on a first and second
chemical, or first and second health effects thereof. The
claims on appeal require at least a method step or a program
code for inputting a first and a second chemical (i.e., claims
1-13 and 20-48) or a first chemical and a first exposure
amount (claims 14-19) and selecting a respirator based on the
first and second chemicals, the health effects of the first
and second chemicals, or a first chemical and a first exposure
amount. Given the total lack of any teaching in Hayward and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007