Appeal No. 97-2612
Application 08/392,766
Claims 10 to 17, 24, and 32 to 38 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over FR in view
of EPA.
The basis of the rejection is set forth on pages 3
and 4 of the examiner's answer, and need not be repeated here.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant's brief and reply brief, and
in
the examiner's answer, we conclude that the claims on appeal
are patentable over the combination of FR in view of EPA, and
will not sustain the rejection.
It is well settled that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed.
Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, the exam-
iner asserts that it would have been obvious "to have modified
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007