Appeal No. 97-0672 Page 3
Application No. 08/329,086
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chan in view of Engvall and Zent.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). To this
end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007