Appeal No. 96-0555
Application No. 08/156,741
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Powell or Vrobel in view of Carr or
Webber.3
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which means that
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), which is
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). This is not to say,
however, that the claimed invention must expressly be
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the
3The Answer erroneously states that the rejection also
includes claims 5 and 7, the former of which was canceled,
while the latter was allowed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007