Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
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. Our reasons for
this determination follow.
Under Section 103, 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. 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 cited prior art
references must specifically suggest making the combination.
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. 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). This test requires us to
take into account not only the specific teachings of the prior
art references, but also any inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007