Appeal No. 1996-0208
Application 08/098,153
reason persuasive.
Although the examiner argues that in view of Clark and
Axer, it would have been obvious to retrofit the Dowd
apparatus in the manner claimed by appellant, “[t]he mere fact
that the prior art could be so modified would not have made
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find,
based on the record before us, that there is no adequate
reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine the reference
teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner. Thus, a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for
the subject matter defined by the appealed claim. Hence, we
reverse the stated rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007