Appeal No. 1996-1085
Application No. 08/097,621
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 32-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bowden and Gilbert.
Claims 53-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bowden and Gilbert as applied to claims 32-52 and further in view of Pigiet.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer1, and the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer2 for the examiner’s
reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference appellants’ Brief3, and
appellants’ Reply Brief4 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the underlying facts. Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); Continental Can
Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270,
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-97 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 481
1 Paper No. 25, mailed February 8, 1995.
2 Paper No. 27, mailed July 17, 1995.
3 Paper No. 24, received November 8, 1994.
4 Paper No. 26, received April 10, 1995.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007