Appeal No. 96-3374
Application No. 08/115,974
hindsight. However, it is our opinion as set forth above that
the applied prior art does provide the suggestion or
motivation to make the selection made by the appellants. The
extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be
fairly inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts
of each case, in light of the prior art and its relationship
to the appellants' claimed invention. It is our determination
that Hiraoka and Rao suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of modifying Oda to make the claimed combination.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 through 12
As set forth previously, the appellants have grouped
claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 12 as standing or falling
together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7),
dependent claims 2, 3 and 5 through 12 fall with independent
claim 1. Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejections of
claim 2, 3 and 5 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also
sustained.
Claim 13
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007