Appeal No. 2006-0912
Application No. 10/081,575
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 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, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above precedents in mind, we turn to the examiner’s
Section 103(a) rejections. We observe that the appellants have
not challenged the examiner’s determination that:
[I]t would have been obvious to remove the chlorine to
less than 0.5 ppm prior to filing the container of...
Guardia since this is a conventional method for
improving the flavor of a carbonated beverage.
...
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007