Appeal No. 1998-1807
Application No. 08/090,770
180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). Since all the limitations of
claim 1 are not taught or suggested by Wiand, the examiner has
not established the prima facie obviousness of the claimed
invention. Therefore, we will not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 14, 20, 21 and 26
through 32 based on Wiand alone.
The examiner has also rejected claims 1 through 14, 20,
21 and 26 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wiand in combination with Pieper. However,
Pieper does not supply the deficiencies noted above with
respect to Wiand. Since all of the claimed limitations in
claims 1 through 14, 20, 21 and
26 through 32 would not have been suggested by the combined
teachings of Wiand and Pieper, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims based on
Wiand and Pieper.
In summary, all of the examiner's rejections of claims 1
through 14 and 20 through 32 are reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007