Ex parte CUSHING - Page 5




          Appeal No. 96-2476                                                          
          Application 07/890,785                                                      


                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 14 through 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35                    
          U.S.C.                                                                      
           103 as being unpatentable over Liberkowski.                               
               Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as               
          being unpatentable over Liberkowski in view of Stein.                       
               The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and              
          Supplemental Answer.                                                        
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in              
          the Brief.                                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               Independent claim 14 stands rejected as being                          
          unpatentable over Liberkowski.  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).  The appellant has argued               
          this reference would not have suggested the claimed subject                 
          matter to one of ordinary skill in the art because the wheel                


                                          5                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007