Appeal No. 96-2860 Page 4
Application No. 08/049,408
support of the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No.
16, filed June 7, 1995) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 41 through 61. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 41 through 61 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the applied prior art 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). In rejecting claims under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007