Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
provision would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
Martin for essentially the same reasons set forth above with
respect to the § 103 rejection of claim 2. As in the case of
claim 2, we see no need to rely on the teachings of
Kiselewski. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that
the combined teachings of Danel and Martin establish the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 14 and 15
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, it is our conclusion that the applied
reference evidence establishes the obviousness of the subject
matter defined by claims 2-6 and 8-16 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of
obviousness as applied in the rejection of the claims on
appeal
is sufficient to establish the obviousness of the subject
matter defined by claims 2-6 and 8-16 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, we recognize that the evidence of nonobviousness
submitted by the appellant must be considered en route to a
determination of obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007