Appeal No. 96-1687
Application No. 08/192,067
Claims 10-12, 14-16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kakko-Chiloff in view of EP
‘559, Bell and Fokos.
Claims 13 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kakko-Chiloff in view of EP ‘559, Bell,
Swiss ‘931 and Fokos.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the APPLICANT’S NEW BRIEF.
OPINION
All of the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte
Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this
end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007