Appeal No. 2000-0341
Application No. 08/849,169
for the suggested combination. However, while there must be
some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine
existing elements to produce the claimed device, it is not
necessary that the cited references or prior art specifically
suggest making the combination (see B.F. Goodrich Co. v.
Aircraft Braking Sys. 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 appellant would
apparently have us believe. Rather, 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, 415, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). 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).
Here, Uekusa teaches a wireless means of communication
between a mobile vehicle and a base station. Furthermore,
Uekusa is also concerned with information authorizing the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007