Appeal No. 97-4249
Application No. 08/249,400
(1) Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 17-20 on the basis of O'Neal, Oogushi
and Wasielewski.
(2) Claims 2 and 3 on the basis of O'Neal, Oogushi, Wasielewski
and Foley
(3) Claim 7 on the basis of O'Neal, Oogushi, Wasielewski and
Holowczenko.
(4) Claim 8 on the basis of O'Neal, Oogushi, Wasielewski and
Mantegazza.
(5) Claims 11-16 on the basis of O'Neal, Oogushi, Wasielewski,
Holowczenko and Mantegazza.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's, Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
All of the examiner's rejections are under 35 U.S.C. §
103. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007