Appeal No. 96-3132 Page 3
Application No. 08/248,521
23, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed April
12, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed
March 18, 1996) 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. 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007