Appeal No. 2006-0320
Application No. 10/293,833
the patentability of a claimed invention which relies on the
combination of two known elements, the question to be answered
is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to
suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making
the combination. In this case, we find that there is simply
nothing in the disparate teachings of the applied prior art
patents and the AAPA which would have indicated a desirability
for their combination and thus have led one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to such a
combination.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in the AAPA, Martin and Gibson would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of independent claims 10, 23 or 26 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows
that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 11 through 22,
24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the AAPA, Martin
and Gibson also will not be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007