Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 11
Application No. 08/706,767
porous material such as sintered metallic or ceramic material.
In the reply brief (p. 1), the appellants agree that the
examiner is technically correct and offered to amend claim 15
by changing "coated" to --covered-- and by changing "coating"
to
--covering--. However, the examiner refused to enter these
amendments.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15 to 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007