Appeal No. 2005-1438
Application No. 10/027,433
Claims 1 through 5, 8 and 13 through 17 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Oku and Deith.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
applied prior art references, including all of the arguments
advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude
that the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness of an invention
cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior art
references absent some 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 cited 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 prior art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007