Appeal No. 95-4648
Application No. 07/952,137
least one” and the transitory word “comprising”. Genentech
Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613
(Fed. Cir. 1997)(“Comprising” used in claim language means
that the named element is essential but other elements are
within the scope of the claim).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the applied prior art. Reevaluating the prima facie case of
obviousness based on the totality of the record, including the
evidence and arguments submitted by appellants, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence favors obviousness within
the meaning of § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 28 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kumazawa is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007