Appeal No. 2001-1360
Application 09/290,056
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is 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).
The appellants’ well founded observation that Itzel lacks
a fan unit and Junkel a second port is not dispositive inasmuch
as non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Junkel’s teaching that the fan unit disclosed therein
enhances the spray atomizing effect of the associated spray
bottle by equally and uniformly distributing the atomized spray
would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007