Appeal No. 2004-0046 Page 3
Application No. 10/001,313
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed August 13, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 8, mailed
January 30, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the brief (Paper No. 7, filed November 22, 2002) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007