Appeal No. 1999-1926
Application No. 08/675,938
inner surface of the waveguide 27. Note the clamping means at 35
which are capable of applying the clamping pressure on the
dielectric insert 30 for its flat rigid fixing relative to the
supporting element. Therefore, we sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 9, 37 and 38 by Shen.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
While there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or
motivation to combine existing elements to produce the claimed
device, it is not necessary that the cited references or prior
art specifically suggest making the combination (see B.F.
Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577,
1583, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen,
851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) as the
appellant would apparently have us believe. Rather, the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of
the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007