Appeal No. 98-3299
Application 08/335,331
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We have considered the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 4 and 9 through 93 over Hodson or Maloney or Gray or
Bunn or Kennedy. [Answer, page 12]. Appellants argue against
the obviousness of the limitations of these claims and also
present objective indications of nonobviousness. [Brief,
pages 47 to 49]. Each of these claims is dependent on one of
the independant claims which we have discussed above under the
§ 102 rejection, where we found that none of the applied
references contained the limitations claimed in the
independant claims. The Examiner has not provided any details
as to how these limitations would have been obvious other than
the conclusory statement, “Since ... , it can obviously
provide information regarding ‘relative motion’ of the target
as claimed. To use any appropriate collateral information is
obvious.” [Answer, page 12], and find none from a review of
the applied prior art. We, therefore, find that the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the
rejection of claims 4 and 9 through 93. Thus, we reverse
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007