Ex Parte MUSSCHOOT - Page 8





                 Appeal No. 2002-2021                                                                                   Page 8                     
                 Application No. 09/024,077                                                                                                        



                         We reach the same conclusion with regard to the examiner’s like comments                                                  

                 about claims 6 and 14.  In each case, the examiner has taken the position that                                                    

                 “connected to” must be interpreted as meaning directly connected to.  It is our view that                                         

                 this is too restrictive, based upon the common applicable definition of “connected”5 and                                          

                 the description of the invention in the specification.                                                                            

                         This rejection is not sustained.                                                                                          

                                                                       (4)                                                                         

                         The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 under Section 103 as being                                             

                 obvious6 in view of the combined teachings of Semenov and Musschoot.  It is the                                                   

                 examiner’s view that Semenov discloses all of the subject matter recited in these claims                                          

                 except for the particulars of the rotatable and reversible drive.  However, the examiner                                          

                 has taken the position that it would have been obvious to provide the Semenov                                                     

                 apparatus with this feature in view of the teachings of Musschoot.  We do not agree.                                              



                         5Joined or fastened together, usually by something intervening.  Webster’s New Collegiate                                 
                 Dictionary, 1973, page 240.                                                                                                       
                         6The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to                         
                 one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881                           
                 (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to                             
                 provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or                      
                 to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,                             
                 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation 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).                             










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007