Appeal No. 1999-2628 Page 5
Application No. 08/652,723
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, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art having
those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or modification. See In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). 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).
The appellant's argument (brief, page 10) that it is difficult to imagine what one would
have by combining Maggiore and Wall and that it is doubtful that it would be anything of value
is not well taken, in our opinion. As we see it, the combined teachings of Maggiore and Wall
would have suggested providing the hair cutting guide apparatus of Maggiore with a plurality
of arcuate detents on the clamping face of one of the jaw members and a channel and cushion
on the clamping face of the other jaw member in the manner taught by Wall so as to raise
strands of hair engaged by the apparatus varying amounts in order to facilitate cutting of a
serrated edge. The device so produced is a hair cutting guide apparatus specially adapted for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007