Appeal No. 1997-1896
Application No. 08/476,389
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Regardless of whether the examiner’s analysis is correct, it sufficiently makes the
required factual determinations to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Since
appellants have presented several substantive arguments in response to the examiner’s
rejection, we consider the determination of obviousness based upon the totality of the
evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
Appellants admit that the prior art references individually teach components of the
claimed invention, but argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings as maintained by the examiner.
(See brief at pages 2-3.) We agree with appellants. We find that the examiner has not
provided a convincing line of reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the general teaching of using a core with grooves as taught by
Rawlyk with the specific materials as taught by Brosius.
The examiner applies Rawlyk which is a teaching for a composite tape which is to
be used in telecommunications cables. Rawlyk teaches the general use of a spacer
similar to that set forth in claim 20. Rawlyk merely states that core, 12, has helical grooves
to house transmission elements and a strength member, 16, in the center. The examiner
has not cited any portion of Rawlyk which would have suggested any
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007