Appeal No. 2004-1016
Application No. 10/174,567
OBVIOUSNESS
The obviousness of an invention cannot be established by
combining the teachings of the prior art references absent some
teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the combination.
See ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This does not
mean that the prior are references must specifically suggest
making the combination. See B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft
Braking Systems 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 prior art references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See 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).
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Dunlap and Allred. The disclosure of
Dunlap is discussed above. The examiner acknowledges that Dunlap
does not disclose that “the movable grill and the at least one
projecting actuator are integrally molded from a plastic
material” as required by claim 4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007