Appeal No. 95-0140
Application 08/002,528
nozzles impact the particles (see page 17).
Considering first the rejection of claims 17, 18, 20 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kono in view of
Ube and the admitted prior art, either alone or further in view
of Rothele, we observe that the appellants have presented no
arguments or reasons whatsoever as to why the examiner’s
rejection of claims 17, 18, 20 and 22 might be in error.
Instead, the appellants’ arguments in the brief have focused
entirely on the rejection of independent claim 24. In any event,
we have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as described
in the specification, the subject matter defined by independent
claim 17 and the prior art applied by the examiner. This review
leads us to conclude that the relied on prior art establishes the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by independent claim 17
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Initially we note that in order to establish obviousness
under § 103 it is not necessary that the cited references or
prior art must specifically suggest making the combination. B.F.
Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72 F.3d 1577,
1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007