Appeal No. 1999-0266 Page 5
Application No. 08/290,678
conclusion that the examiner has not established obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The evidence of nonobviousness submitted by the appellant
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 must carefully evaluate
both the combined teachings of the applied prior art and the
objective evidence of nonobviousness supplied by the
appellant. 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).
The teachings of the applied prior art relied upon by the
examiner as establishing obviousness of the claimed invention
are set forth on pages 2-4 of the final rejection which we
incorporate by reference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007