Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 9
Application No. 09/064,083
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-15) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id. Here, it is our
determination that the prior art contains none. In fact, the
advantages of utilizing a collision detecting member to cause
a fuse to blow to interrupt a vehicle power supply are not
appreciated by the prior art applied by the examiner.
Instead, it appears to us that the examiner relied on
hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. However,
our reviewing court has said, "To imbue one of ordinary skill
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007