Appeal No. 1996-2893
Application 08/370,153
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Harbert. He also rejected claims 2, 7, 15, 19, 21 and 24 as
being unpatentable over Harbert in view of Burkel. All these rejections are enumerated in
the answer and incorporated from the final rejection.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ argument set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1-24. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We now consider the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the evidence
presented in the record. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007