Appeal No. 2002-0543 Page 7
Application No. 09/118,629
Takabe Translation, ¶ 0003. For the aforementioned reason, any other prerequisites
for illumination that may be mentioned in the reference are not excluded by the open-
ended claim.
Even if the claim was not open-ended, "[w]hat appellant[] overlook[s] is that it is
not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render
obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ
385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d
1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958,
157 USPQ 277, 281 (CCPA 1968)). See also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179
USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1972) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve
an ability to combine their specific structures."). The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another
reference but what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Here, combining teachings of Kashiwagi and Takabe does not require bodily
incorporating the entire logic unit and control algorithm of the latter into the structure of
the former. Takabe is relied on only to disclose the use of a proximity sensor to actuate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007