Appeal No. 2000-2217 Page 8
Application No. 09/067,287
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 view
that the teachings of the applied prior art contain no
suggestion or incentive to combine them together in the manner
set forth above by the examiner. In fact, the advantages of
utilizing a first portion of a cap having (1) an inner side
surface which is in intimate contact with the body of
ignitable material and (2) an outer side surface which is
engageable with the burst disk are not appreciated by the
prior art applied by the examiner.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Mossi in
the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007