Appeal No. 1997-1430
Application No. 08/225,756
teaching in a prior art reference, common knowledge or capable
of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case. In re
Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72
(CCPA 1966). Accordingly, since all of the limitations are
not taught or suggested by the prior art, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 15, 22, and 29.
In summary, we have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claims 14, 21, and 28, but have not
sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims
15, 22, and 29. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, and 29 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007