Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 43
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
including compliance with governmental regulations (e.g., 7
CFR § 59.500, et seq.)
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS
Having arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of
the prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to claims 12 to 17, 18/12, 18/16,
19/12 and 19/16, we recognize once again that the evidence of
nonobviousness submitted by the appellants must be considered
en route to a determination of obviousness/nonobviousness
under
35 U.S.C. § 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713
F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we
consider anew the issue of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
carefully evaluating therewith the objective evidence of
nonobviousness supplied by the appellants. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007