Appeal No. 1996-3178
Application 08/407,275
In any event, the artisan would have had no need for recourse to applicants’ disclosure for
direction to apply the teachings of either Thomas or Banks to a storage system as taught by Saliga. All
that is involved is the application of knowledge clearly present in the prior art. See In re Sheckler, 438
F.2d 999, 1001, 168 USPQ 716, 717 (CCPA 1971).
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and the
references are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing rejections of claims 2 to 5, 7
to 9, 12 and 13 on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 2 to 5, 7 to 9, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007