Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
We note that Appellants have not provided any evidence to support
this statement. Furthermore, even if there is evidence to
support the statement, we find this argument without merit
because the lack of commercially availability does not rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness establishing that
it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to obtain
Appellants’ claimed invention in view of the teachings of
Mincone, Treat and Riskin. We note that Appellants have not
provided arguments that specify the error in the Examiner’s
rejection and that explain why the references, take as a whole,
do not suggest the claimed subject matter. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 21 and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mincone, Treat and
Riskin.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed; however, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In
addition, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 5, 9
and 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007