Appeal No. 97-4241
Application No. 08/183,066
(1) Claims 1-6, 8-10, 17, 18, 22-27 and 36-39 on the
basis of the British reference in view of Cannon
and Balicki.
(2) Claims 14 and 29 on the basis of the British
reference in view of Cannon, Balicki and
Lundblade.
(3) Claims 11-13, 20, 21 and 28 on the basis of the
British reference in view of Cannon, Balicki,
Jamieson and McCarthy.
(4) Claims 15 and 16 on the basis of the British
reference in view of Cannon, Balicki and Samson.
(5) Claim 19 on the basis of the British reference in
view of Cannon, Balicki and Pandell.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 7 (the final
rejection).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
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). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 USC § 103, it is incumbent upon the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007