Appeal No. 1997-3785
Application No. 08/527,591
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Greco in view of Cmejrek, Aiken and
Swart.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 31) and to the Appellants’ Briefs (Papers No. 30 and 32).
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, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, 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 invention. See
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
1A rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the
basis of Greco, Aiken, McKiel, Houston and Swart was withdrawn
in the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007