Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
claims 11 through 13, 16 and 17 as being obvious over Sasaki in view of Gould,
with the addition of Lang as to claims 14 and 18.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference
is made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for
the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons detailed below we sustain the rejections of claims 1 through
10 and 15, but we reverse the rejections of claims 11 through 14 and 16 through
18.
At the outset, we note that the test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a
primary reference. It is also not that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. 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 414, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007