Appeal No. 98-1193
Application No. 08/448,687
The rejection is explained in the Examiner’s Answer.
The arguments of the appellant in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Brief and
the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs. The determinations we have made and the reasoning
behind them are set forth below.
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 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007