Appeal No. 97-1074
Application 08/170,224
Appellants’ Invention and
the Prior Art
An adequate description of the invention and the prior art is
given at pages 1-4 of the brief and will not be repeated here.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the
rejection of claims 1-7 should not be sustained. In the rejection
of claim 1, it is considered that the examiner has shown that it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the applied
prior art as the references are at least from analogous arts.
Nevertheless, the examiner has not shown that the combined prior
art applied against claim 1 includes the claim requirements that
the claimed fluid be a non-liquid having a Poisson ratio of at
least 0.49 or have an instantaneous bulk modulus of elasticity of
under 10 Mpa. Nor has it been established that the above would
have involved obvious modifications of the combined prior art.
Such being the case, a prima facie case of obviousness has not
been established, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim
1. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007