Appeal No. 95-1211
Application 07/887,904
508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446, 169 USPQ 423, 426
(CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combination of Turbett, Baron, MacLeay and
appellants’ specification as a whole with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that by a preponderance of the evidence the claimed invention
encompassed by claims 1 through 11 and 16 on appeal as a whole would have been obvious as a
matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We further conclude based on the same evidence and
argument that by a preponderance of the evidence the claimed invention encompassed by claim 17 on
appeal as a whole would have been nonobvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, we have affirmed the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 11 and 16 but have
reversed the rejection of appealed claim 17.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007