Appeal No. 2005-0655
Application No. 09/896,505
functioning as a beam, that has flanges that are more
resistant to bending, or a web that is more resistant
to shear, or both of these attributes, by comparison
with conventional I-beam or channel sectioned members
made from a similarly sized original strip [column 2,
lines 22 through 39].
Although the appellant’s observation that the metallic
members respectively disclosed by Dolati and Seccombe differ
somewhat in physical configuration is well taken, it is axiomatic
that non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this regard, 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, the test is 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).
Notwithstanding their configurational differences, the
rolled metallic members disclosed by Dolati and Seccombe serve
identical purposes, i.e., the construction of roof trusses, and
to this end both include hollow flange elements. Seccombe’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007