Appeal No. 95-4733
Application No. 08/091,030
However, the examiner has not shown or established any
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to make the proposed
combination. In re Bond, supra. The examiner has not
established why the artisan would have been motivated to
employ the high strength steels of Dickinson as the substrate
in the kitchen or lavatory appliances of Rion.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in
view of the disclosures and teachings of the applied prior
art. In view of this determination, we need not address the
sufficiency of the rebuttal evidence presented by appellant in
the Chilson Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 (attachment to
Paper No. 6 dated Aug. 4, 1994 see the Brief, pages 17-18).
In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okai or Rion in
view of Dickinson is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007