Appeal No. 1997-1186
Application No. 08/319,913
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hingorany and Ishibashi in view of
Tomigana and Wamstad and further in view of Hynecek.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 19.
The grant of a patent is precluded “if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.” See 35 U.S.C. Section 103(a).
Factual determinations of a prima facie case of obviousness
include: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
level of ordinary skill in the prior art; (3) the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4)
objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 466-67 (1966). To
establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007