Appeal No. 2004-0363
Application 09/176,866
teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination.
See ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This does not mean
that the prior art references must specifically suggest making
the combination. See B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Sys.
Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Rather, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding
that Holt teaches a massaging device corresponding to the massage
apparatus recited in claim 15, except for (1) its applicator
cavity not being ”concave shaped” and not “having a size about
the size of the end surface” of the applicator, (2) its
connection tube not being “capable of applying at least a partial
vacuum to the cavity so as to draw and stretch fibrous tissue of
the human body within the cavity” and (3) its vacuum line capable
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007