Appeal No. 96-2752
Application 08/224,202
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Bryant et al. (Bryant) 4,410,889 Oct. 18, 1983
Gomersall et al. (Gomersall) 4,500,880 Feb. 19, 1985
Revesz et al. (Revesz) 4,888,709 Dec. 19, 1989
Rashidi 2 164 189 A Mar. 12, 1986
(UK Patent Application)
Minkus WO89/03571 Apr. 20, 1989.
(International Application)
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Minkus in view of Revesz, Bryant, Gomersall and Rashidi.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety
of these rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 15) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13) and reply brief (Paper No. 16).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and
the appellant, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. It is considered that the
examiner has failed to establish motivation for combining the teachings of the specific prior art on which
he relied. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007