Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This does not mean that the
cited prior art must specifically suggest making the
combination. See B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking
Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 1996); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500,
1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rather, the test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991);In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). “As
long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the
references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the
law does not require that the [prior art] references be
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Nor does the prior art references need to disclose
explicitly all the utilities or benefits of the claimed
invention to render the claimed subject matter unpatentable
under Section 103. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 696,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007