Appeal No. 1999-1064 Page 8
Application No. 08/654,766
end. Therefore, even considering, arguendo, that suggestion
were to exist for altering the solid piece disclosed in the
British publication in accordance with the teachings of these
two secondary references, the result would not be the claimed
invention.
For the reasons set forth above, we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the British device in the
manner proposed by the examiner. This being the case, it is
our conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established with regard to any of the four independent
claims. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 8, 12, 16 and 20 or, it follows, of claims
9-11, 13-15, 17-19 and 21-23, which depend therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007