Appeal No. 99-0209
Application No. 08/643,048
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Amos in view of Bayer.2
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the opposing viewpoints of the
examiner and the appellant, we refer to the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 17) and the appellant’s Briefs (Papers Nos. 16 and
19) for a full explanation thereof.
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
2Although not so designated, technically, this is a new
rejection made for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer, in
that it is applied for the first time against a number of the
claims. In the final rejection, the examiner rejected claims
1-4, 8-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Amos, and claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Amos in view of Bayer. The Section
102 rejection has been withdrawn, and the appellant has
responded to the new Section 103 rejection in the Reply Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007