In Re Hans Oetiker

I agree with the panel decision and write only to express my understanding of the language that there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation found “in the prior art” or “in the prior art references” to make a combination to render an invention obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1988). Similar language appears in a number of opinions1 *1448and if taken literally would mean that an invention cannot be held to have been obvious unless something specific in a prior art reference would lead an inventor to combine the teachings therein with another piece of prior art.

This…