Appeal No. 2004-0917
Application No. 09/684,210
is chamfered. “The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference” but rather “what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The appellants make the same principal argument for
rejections III through VI. Accordingly, we affirm these
rejections for the same reasons discussed above.
For these reasons and those set forth in the answer, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting of: (i) claims 1,
6, 7, 9, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over patented claim 3 of
Pickett; (ii) claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over
patented claim 4 of Pickett in view of Stendahl; (iii) claim 8
as unpatentable over patented claim 4 of Pickett; (iv) claim 10
as unpatentable over patented claim 3 of Pickett in view of Le;
(v) claim 16 as unpatentable over patented claims 3 and 4 of
Pickett; and (vi) claim 17 as unpatentable over patented claim
12 of Pickett.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007