Appeal No. 2005-0648
Application No. 09/824,980
appellants’ apparent belief, the test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any
one or all of the references. Rather, as previously explained,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller,
642 F.2d at 425-26, 208 USPQ at 881.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer, we hereby sustain the examiner’s Section 103
rejections of claim 6 over Kliman, the admitted prior art and
Nishiyama in view of Trago and of claims 14 and 20 over Kliman,
the admitted prior art, Nishiyama, McCann and Ackermann in view
of Trago.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007