Appeal No. 1998-2753
Application No. 08/740,887
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1-3 and 5-7 on the basis of Pinson and Cutts.
(2) Claims 1-3 and 5-7 on the basis of Pinson and Davies.
(3) Claims 1-3 and 5-7 on the basis of Pinson and Lurie.
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
appellants regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 9) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the Appellants’ Briefs (Paper Nos. 8
and 10), for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007