Appeal No. 96-2992
Application 08/200,049
the invention. Such demonstrated success in the community
recognition and the government award program may be the result of
numerous worthwhile criteria, yet very different from the
criteria for granting a patent. The purpose of secondary
considerations is to elucidate the connection between the
invention and some secondary element(s) which alerts the
reviewing party that the presumptively obvious invention claimed
may not have been obvious. Without a demonstrable connection,
this point is lost. Thus, we find that the offered secondary
factors are not relevant to the question of obviousness in this
case.
For the rationale above, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hashimoto and Yamamoto. Since claims 2 through 7 are in the same
grouping, they fall with claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 2 through 7 on the same ground is also sustained.
In conclusion, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejection
of claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hashimoto and Yamamoto.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007