Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
We will not sustain any of the examiner's rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 since the examiner has not established a factual
basis as to why the differences between the claimed subject
matter, as set forth previously with respect to the anticipation
issue, and the individually applied prior art (i.e., Kato,
Niemeyer, Rose, Scheibert or Ahrens) would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention.
The only difference in the independent claims that the
examiner found to have been obvious was providing a plurality of
control pads positioned in a separate "open at one side recess."
The evidence the examiner first used in the final rejection to
suggest the modification of the applied prior art was that
it is common knowledge in the art to form a recess with more
than one control pad for the convenience of the driver to
control different devices simultaneously.
However, the appellant seasonably challenged this statement in
the brief. Thus, the burden to supply evidence to support this
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007