Appeal No. 95-1849
Application 07/681,527
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bechtolsheim in view of Berber.2
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Supplemental Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The claims before us all stand rejected as being obvious in
view of the teachings of Bechtolsheim and Berber. Of course, the
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103, 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
2A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was
withdrawn upon the entry of an amendment after the final
rejection (Papers Nos. 14 and 16).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007