Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 4
Application No. 09/089,153
appellant’s assertion, appellant presents separate arguments
(brief, page 9) directed toward dependent claim 2.
Accordingly, as claim 2 has been separately argued, we will
separately consider the patentability of claim 2.
We initially note that the rejection of all of the claims is
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to
be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed combination
or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173
USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007