Appeal No. 98-0005
Application No. 08/613,808
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being2
unpatentable over Maley in view of Allen, Woodman and Andrew.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maley in view of Allen, Woodman, Andrew and
Cardner.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Maley in view of Allen, Woodman,
Andrew and Boggs.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
2Canceled claim 7 erroneously has been listed as being on
appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007