Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
However, we note that the Examiner did provide reasons
which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the Examiner's proposed modifications. Appellant has
not provided in the briefs any specific arguments as to the
Examiner's reasoning as to why those skilled in the art would
have made the combination.
The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73
F.3d at 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40, that for the
determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill
in the art who sets out to solve the problem and who had
before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellant. Furthermore, the test of obviousness is not
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007