Appeal 2007-1092
Application 10/939,463
As was recently described in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2006):
[T]he “motivation-suggestion-teaching” test asks not
merely what the references disclose, but whether a person
of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the
understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art,
and motivated by the general problem facing the
inventor, would have been led to make the combination
recited in the claims. From this it may be determined
whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and
suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the
art – i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention-support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
(internal citations omitted).
Id. at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1337. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
references being combined do not need to explicitly suggest combining their
teachings. See id. at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1337-38 (“the teaching, motivation, or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly
stated in the references”). “'The test for an implicit showing is what the combined
teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.’” Id. at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “a pair of braid press-fastening portions extend in an
upstanding manner respectively from opposite side edges of a terminal bottom
plate portion, and press-connected to said braid of said coaxial cable by press-
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013