Appeal No. 1996-3084
Application 08/168,167
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer,
we sustain the rejection as to claims 1 through 16, but
reverse the rejection as to claims 17 and 18 for reasons that
will be apparent in the ensuing discussion.
At the outset, we note that with respect to appellant's
arguments at pages 10 and 11 of the brief asserting that the
applied prior art Juengel patent does not solve the same
problem as appellant addresses in accordance with the
disclosed and claimed invention, it is noted that in an
obviousness determination, the prior art need not suggest
solving the same problem set forth by appellant. In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(in banc)
(overruling-in-part In re Wright, 848 F.3d 1216, 1120 6 USPQ2d
1959, 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991).
To the extent the prior art as a whole includes
appellant's discussion with respect to the prior art at the
bottom of page 1 through the top of page 3 of the disclosed
invention, appellant's arguments between pages 8 and 10 of the
brief on appeal relate principally to known prior art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007