Ex parte MIYAZAWA et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 96-1805                                                          
          Application 08/200,432                                                      

               The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.                 
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in             
          the Brief.                                                                  

               The examiner has presented two rejections under 35 U.S.C.              
           103, each of which relies on the combined teachings of at least           
          four references in order to support the conclusion that the                 
          claimed subject matter would have been obvious.  The guidance               
          provided us by our reviewing court for evaluation of such                   
          rejections is that 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, 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 (BPAI 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              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007