Appeal No. 2004-0019 Page 4
Application No. 09/884,914
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Thus, 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).
In this case, the combined teachings of the applied prior art would not have
suggested having the visual confirmation member pulled into the insertion path by a
second distance from the rear end face of the outer housing, which is smaller than the
"first distance" (i.e., the distance the front end face of the inner housing protrudes from
a front end face of the outer housing when the inner housing provisionally fits with the
outer housing). Instead, the combined teachings of the applied prior art would have
suggested having the visual confirmation member pulled into the insertion path by a
distance from the rear end face of the outer housing, which is equal to or larger than the
"first distance."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007