Appeal No. 96-2476
Application 07/890,785
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 14 through 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Liberkowski.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Liberkowski in view of Stein.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Supplemental Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
Independent claim 14 stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Liberkowski. The test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the prior art would have
suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The appellant has argued
this reference would not have suggested the claimed subject
matter to one of ordinary skill in the art because the wheel
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007