Appeal No. 2001-0154
Application No. 08/838,266
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran
in view of Bellinger. The examiner, recognizing that Corcoran
does not disclose the use of additional rod receiving members,
relies on Bellinger for disclosing a bracket system comprising
a plurality of rod receiving members. The examiner concludes
that to incorporate this teaching into the bracket system of
Corcoran for the purpose of supporting a plurality of curtains
so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing appearance would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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).
We agree with the appellant that the combined teachings
of the prior art do not suggest the provision of a bracket
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007