Appeal 2006-1263
Application 10/173,259
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).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it 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. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Combining the teachings of the references relied upon by the Examiner does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. In re Nievelt, 482
F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1973).
ANALYSIS
We turn first to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 14-18
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monk in view of
Rice.
The Appellants’ argument that Monk does not teach a removable
bushing and further that there is no suggestion in Monk to modify its flow
passage A to be a removable bushing is not persuasive. The Appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013