Appeal No. 1999-2537 Page 14
Application No. 08/619,269
Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1583, 37 USPQ2d
1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401,
1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as the appellants
would apparently have us believe. Rather, as stated above,
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper
to take into account not only the specific teachings of the
references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In
this case, it is our opinion that the combined teachings of
Carey and Ensten would have made it obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to arrive at the subject matter of claim 22 for the
reasons set forth above.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 4, 5, 7, 9,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007