Appeal No. 2000-0324 Page 4
Application No. 08/763,874
mailed March 12, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 26,
filed October 22, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed
May 18, 1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 31-41, 44-49
and 56-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In reaching our above-noted decision in this appeal, we
have given careful consideration to the appellants'
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references,
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants
and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before
us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007