Appeal No. 97-2456
Application 08/424,064
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
a) claims 1, 3, 7 through 10, 12, 16 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of Glaese;
b) claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14 and 18 as being unpatentable
over Jones in view of Glaese, and further in view of Cruickshank;
and
c) claims 6 and 15 as being unpatentable over Jones in view
of Glaese, and further in view of Hamalainen.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 9 and 11) and to the examiner’s final rejection and
answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 10) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
As indicated above, all of the examiner’s rejections rest on
the basic prior art combination of Jones in view of Glaese. The
threshold issue in this appeal is whether the Glaese reference is
non-analogous art as urged by the appellant (see page 23 in the
main brief). A reference which is non-analogous is too remote to
be treated as prior art in evaluating the obviousness of a
claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d
1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007