Ex parte ZEIGLER et al. - Page 12


                                                         Appeal No. 1996-2718                                                                   
                                                       Application No. 08/221,207                                                               



                         incorrect and must cease.  Any such administrative convenience is simply inconsistent                                  
                         with section 103, which, according to Graham [v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148                                       
                         USPQ 459 (1966)] and its progeny, entitles an applicant to issuance of an otherwise                                    
                         proper patent unless the PTO established that the invention as claimed in the application                              
                         is obvious over cited prior art, based on the specific comparison of that prior art with                               
                         claim limitations.  We once again hold today that our precedents do not establish any                                  
                         per se rules of obviousness, just as those precedents themselves expressly declined to                                 
                         create such rules.  Any conflicts as may be perceived to exist derive from an                                          
                         impermissible effort to extract per se rules from decisions that disavow precisely such                                
                         extraction.                                                                                                            
                To paraphrase the court in Ochiai,  71 F.3d at 1570, 37 USPQ2d at 1132, "there are not [Pfeiffer]                               
                obviousness rejections . . . but rather only section 103 obviousness rejections."                                               
                         Since the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 10 as unpatentable over Walz in view of Bock has                          
                been reversed, the separate rejection of dependent claim 6 as unpatentable over Walz in view of Bock                            
                and Wagner must be set aside as well.  Wagner also fails to provide the necessary teachings or                                  
                suggestions which Walz and Bock lack.  While Wagner teaches "fine mineral fibers, in particular glass                           
                fibers and diabase fibers" at col. 1, lines 5-10, the reference does not teach flexible superconducting                         
                fibers of the type presently claimed nor has the examiner pointed to any suggestion in the reference                            
                about modifying the teachings of Walz or Bock to arrive at the flexible superconducting fibers presently                        
                claimed.  Moreover, the reference teaches heating the fiberizing gas to 800-1400EC (1472-2552EF) at                             
                col. 4, lines 19-25, which "teaches away" from the 150-750EF presently claimed.  Prior art references                           
                must be considered in their entireties, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the                      
                claimed invention.  See W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, 721 F. 2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ                                 
                303, 311 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. den., 469 U.S. 851 (1984).                                                                     







                                                                                                                           12                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007