Appeal No. 1998-0252
Application No. 08/555,795
(2) Claim 10 on the basis of Colavito and Barber.
(3) Claims 11 and 15-17 on the basis of Colavito, Barber and
the
admitted prior art.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 26) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the Briefs (Papers Nos. 25 and 27),
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
All three of the standing 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, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, 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. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007