Appeal No. 97-1761 Page 5
Application No. 08/380,223
declaration of Gerald R. Pruitt (Paper No. 19, filed January
5, 1996) and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the examiner has
not established obviousness with respect to the claims under
appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
The evidence of nonobviousness submitted by the
appellants must be considered en route to a determination of
obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See
Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we must carefully evaluate
both the combined teachings of the applied prior art and the
objective evidence of nonobviousness supplied by the
appellants. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Rejection utilizing Yano or Kuhl
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007