Appeal No. 1997-2076
Application No. 08/175,718
As to the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 4) of the
obviousness of making integral that which had formerly been
separate elements, it is apparent that this contention is
based on the premise that the skilled artisan would have found
it obvious to add a transformer to Strohbeck’s vibrator
structure. From our previous discussion, we find this premise
to be based on faulty reasoning. To the extent that the
Examiner’s contention as to the obviousness of making separate
elements part of an integral whole is correct and relevant in
the present factual situation, it is our view that such
reasoning can not alone provide a proper basis for a proposed
combination if one of ordinary skill were not motivated to
combine the separate elements in the first instance.
For all of the reasons discussed above, we are of the
view that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness and, therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
103
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007