Appeal No. 1998-1296
Application 08/199,304
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In the present case, we fail to perceive any teaching,
suggestion or incentive in the applied references which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or augment
the structure disclosed by Christianson in such a manner as to
meet the terms of independent claims 1, 13 and 22. We are not
persuaded otherwise by examiner’s opinion on page 4 of the
Answer that the “sharp peaks” in resonance observed in the
General Dynamics tests would have provided the requisite
suggestion to the artisan “because . . . [such] would promote
a faster and more energetic ignition.” In this regard, it is
notable that the examiner has provided no evidence in support
of this conclusion. Moreover, even if that were the case, the
requirement for a “resonant cavity” has not been reached, and
that is what the claims require.
It therefore is our opinion that the combined teachings
of Christianson and General Dynamics fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in the claims, and we will not sustain the rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007