Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
device since Ledesma already incorporates restraining straps
(24). Furthermore, appellant urges that adding a restraining
strap across Ledesma's channel would interfere with access to
the individual's back and lumbar region during surgery.
We disagree with appellant. The Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit and its predecessor, the Court of Customs and
Patent Appeals, have provided us with the following guidance
for evaluating what would have been obvious within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The question under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
not merely what the references expressly teach, but what they
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made. See Merck & Co., Inc. v.
Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). While there must be some
suggestion or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the teachings of the references, it is not
necessary that such to be found in the four corners of the
references themselves; a conclusion of obviousness may be made
from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007