Appeal No. 1996-3980
Application 08/290,125
the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Chang and Ziolo ‘756 with appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 9, 11 and 24 through 27 would have been obvious as a
matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See generally, In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460, 223 USPQ
1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
In summary, we have affirmed the ground of rejection of claim 4 under § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement; the ground of rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 9, 11 and
24 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Maruno; the ground of rejection of
claims 1 through 9, 11 and 24 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chang ; and the ground of rejection of claims 1
through 9, 11 and 24 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of
Ziolo ‘756. We have reversed the ground of rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 11, 20
through 22 and 24 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement;
and the ground of rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN D. SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007