Appeal No. 96-0943 Page 3
Application No. 08/142,832
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not well founded and will
therefore not be sustained. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 17 through
22 and 24 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we share the
appellant's view that the combined teachings of the applied prior
art would not have suggested the claimed invention.
Specifically, it is our determination that the combined teachings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007