Appeal No. 95-5103 Page 8
Application No. 08/074,303
of a claim does not in and of itself make a claim indefinite. 4
In any event, it is our view that claim 1 does set forth a
cooperative relationship of the elements recited.
The obviousness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1,
6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Obviousness is established by presenting evidence that
the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one
of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the teachings
before him to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972) and
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that the only
difference between Farkas and claim 1 was that "Farkas fails
4Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,, 169 USPQ 597
(CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007