Appeal No. 1998-1807
Application No. 08/090,770
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wiand alone or in combination with Pieper.
With respect to the rejection based on Wiand alone, it is
the examiner’s position that all of the elements of claim 1
are found in Wiand and that the features of dependent claims 2
through 14, 20, 21 and 26 through 32 are either well known in
the art or matters of design choice (Answer, pages 5 and 6).
For the
reason set forth above, we have determined that each and every
element of claim 1 is not found in Wiand. Our review of the
reference further reveals that there is no suggestion of using
the method disclosed therein to make a plateau honing tool
having
an elongated mounting base and a somewhat smaller elongated
projecting section which terminates in an elongated working
face of the tool.
In order to establish the prima facie obviousness of a
claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007