Appeal No. 1998-0062
Application No. 08/252,896
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 19, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over House.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Feb. 19, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer1
(Paper No. 12, mailed June 24, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed Dec. 3, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed Apr. 11, 1997) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining the teachings
of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, absent some teaching or suggestion
We note that the rejection remains the same as that set forth in the examiner’s answer and the1
Response to Argument section merely verbatim recites portions of the rejection without addressing the
substance of the arguments in the reply brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007