Appeal No. 2001-0786
Application No. 09/089,575
Appellant further argues that the proposed "reconstruction"
would have the effect of removing the overlapping feedhole
structure in Duerr and require delivery of batch material
directly from the compound feed section to the slots as in
Kragle. See Brief, pp. 8-9.
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually where the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. As explained 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.
Therefore, it is of no moment that batch material is
delivered directly from the compound feed section to the
discharge slots in Kragle or that the compound feed section in
Kragle does not have an overlapping feedhole structure. The
examiner merely relied on Kragle for its teaching of forming a
compound feed section in a multilayer structure.
Based on the record before us, we find the facts on which
the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness was based to be of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007