Appeal No. 2006-0305 7
Application No. 10/370,545
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).
In the present case, the combined teachings of Merritt, Jones and Davis would
have provided the artisan with ample incentive to employ the Merritt device with a hose
and shower spout of the sort recited in claims 1 and 4-6. More particularly, Merritt
discloses that the device can be used in conjunction with a bathtub drain and relates the
need to connect the device to a source of pressurized water. Jones discloses that
conveniently located and readily accessible water fixtures can be used as sources of
pressurized water for such devices, and Davis demonstrates that one such conveniently
located and readily accessible source or pressurized water in a typical bathtub
environment would be a shower spout. Considered collectively, these teachings would
have furnished one of ordinary skill in the art with the requisite suggestion to adapt the
Merritt device for use in its intended bathtub environment by combining it with a hose for
connection to a conventional externally threaded shower spout associated with the
bathtub in order to supply the device with the pressurized water necessary for its
operation. This assemblage of elements meets all of the structural limitations in claims
1 and 4-6 and clearly would be capable of testing a plumbing system as recited in the
preamble of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007