The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WIELAND HOVESTADT,
MARTIN MELCHIORS and HANS-JOACHIM SCHOLL
______________
Appeal No. 2001-0070
Application 08/841,209
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 5 through
14,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Scholl.2
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by showing that some objective
teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would have led that person to the claimed
1 See the amendment of November 6, 1998 (Paper No. 13).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007