Appeal No. 96-1882
Application No. 08/214,013
The appellant's invention is directed to a portable toilet
seat. The claim before us on appeal is reproduced in an appendix
to the Brief.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Barnes 654,301 Jul. 24, 1900
French patent (Cocu) 628,635 Oct. 26, 1927
THE REJECTION
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cocu in view of Barnes.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The claim stands rejected as being obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Cocu and Barnes. 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.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007