Appeal No. 2002-1549 Page 7
Application No. 09/315,101
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or
from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from
the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
We have pointed out above in evaluating the rejection of claim 1, from which
claims 6-9 depend, the reasons why the language of claim 1 does not read on the
Grover structure. Our opinion is not altered by considering Grover in the light of
35 U.S.C. § 103, for we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Grover table in such a
manner as to meet the terms of claim 1. It therefore follows that Grover does not
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
claims 6-9, all of which depend from claim 1, and we will not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007