Appeal No. 1998-3371
Application 08/614,383
OPINION
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appel-
lants with regard thereto, we make reference to the Examiner’s
Answer (Paper No. 13) and to the Appellants’ Brief (Paper No.
11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teach-
ings 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 inven-
tion. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem
from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art
as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclo-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007