Appeal No. 96-2354
Application No. 08/147,086
Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Yasui, Koike and
King.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Supplemental Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The rejection is on the basis of obviousness, the test
for which 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, 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, suggestion
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007