Appeal No. 1996-2215 Application No. 08/101,093 dioxide in the exhaust gas is the same.” Answer, page 4, lines 5-12. The examiner concludes that “the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made especially in the absence of clear, convincing evidence to the contrary.” Answer, page 4, lines 15-18. 6. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, all claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). That is not the case here. As can be seen from a review of sections IV-D2 and IV-D4 above, the examiner has not established that the combined disclosures of Mori and Shimizu would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the instantly claimed process. A rejection of claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined disclosures of prior art references requires consideration of (1) whether the prior art would have suggested carrying out the claimed process to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and (2) whether the prior art would have revealed that, in so carrying out, a person having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007