Appeal 2007-1885
Application 11/000,309
into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ
385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA
1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-4. As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejection,
we note that Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
tlc/ls/cam
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013