Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 26
Application No. 08/442,816
determination that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to place the plastic sleeve 17 of
Clark over Damon's lock housing also lacks the necessary
evidentiary basis.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of
the prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 3, 4, 6, 9 to 20, 31 to
36 and 44 to 46, 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.
§ 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530,
218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we consider anew
the issue of obviousness of claims 3, 4, 6, 9 to 20, 31 to 36
and 44 to 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating
therewith the objective evidence of nonobviousness supplied by
the appellant. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007