Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
by the claims. See In re Bascom, 230 F.2d 612, 614, 109 USPQ 98,
100 (CCPA 1956). As stated by the Court in In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
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.
Appellants’ third grouping of claims set forth on page 6 of
the brief includes claims 26, 56, 92 and 128. Each of these
claims is a product-by-process claim which directly references an
allowed method claim, i.e., respectively, allowed claims 15, 45,
78 and 114. Claim 26 is directed to “The token made by the
method of Claim 15.” Claims 56, 92 and 128 are similarly
directed to a token, respectively, made by the methods of claims
45, 78 and 114.
Allowed claim 15 reads as follows:
15. A method of making a token having a minted portion and
an imprinted portion comprising:
a) providing a metal blank having the desired metallic
composition ro a token, the metal blank having a border area and
a center area, the ctner area including a cavity;
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007