Appeal No. 95-1405
Application 08/095,276
To the extent appellants argue in their concluding
remarks at page 6 of the Brief that the examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the examiner’s
position has not embraced the problems the appellants have
solved, this position is misplaced. In an obviousness
determination, the prior art need not suggest solving the same
problem set forth by appellants. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc)
(overruling in part In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216, 1220, 6
USPQ2d 1959, 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991).
Turning lastly to the rejection of independent claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective teachings of
Fisher in view of Edmunds, we reverse this rejection. The
statement of the rejection of this claim is stated at page 3
of the Answer to be found in Paper No. 5, which is the Final
Rejection. At pages 3 and 4 of this rejection, the examiner
asserts that Fisher discloses everything claimed except for
the housing with receiving slots. For all the reasons set
forth by the appellants in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and
6 of the Brief, we will reverse this rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007