Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 13
Application No. 09/912,211
a. Claim Construction
Claim 33 further recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "shielding the
interior of said container from extraneous external signals." Giving the representative
claim the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require shielding the interior
of a container from external signals.
b. Obviousness Determination
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). In determining
obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id., Id. Furthermore, "[t]he
presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness
determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316,
53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A suggestion to combine teachings from the
prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves,
from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013