Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/245,442
to the here claimed subject matter. In essence, appellants
seemingly argue that each of the applied references would have to
describe all of the here claimed method steps in an anticipatory
manner in order to be combinable and render the claimed subject
matter unpatentable. Of course, that is not the legally mandated
test for combining references. While there must be some
teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to use the cleaning
method of Ameen in conjunction with the deposition process of
Nguyen with or without the specific heater of Mandrekar so as to
result in the claimed process, it is not necessary that each of
the cited references specifically suggest making that particular
combination. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take
into account not only the specific teachings of the references
but also the 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007