Appeal No. 1998-1382
Application No. 08/330,717
The examiner has cited Bacehowski for describing what is
already admitted by the appellants as prior art on page 2 of
the present specification, namely a cell culture flask made of
polystyrene. (Examiner’s answer, page 5.) Similarly, Bonis
and Stanley have been applied for the use of a tie layer and
skin layer, respectively. (Id. at pp. 6-8.) However, none of
these prior art references remedy what is fundamentally
lacking in Erb and Sumitomo. In particular, there is no
teaching or suggestion in these references that the multi-
layer film of Erb or Sumitomo would possess the properties
required for Keilman’s purpose.
Absent the benefit of the appellants’ specification as a
template, we determine that there is no teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to combine the prior art references in the
manner as proposed by the examiner. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138, 227
USPQ 543, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For these reasons and those expressed in the appellants’
briefs, we hold that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness as to appealed independent
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007