Appeal No. 1996-2802 Page 3
Application No. 08/140,142
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 18, 20 and 21 on the basis of
Matthews combined with McCan in view of Turner, Pfleumer and
Heritage.
(2) Claims 14-17 and 22 on the basis of Matthews combined
with McCan in view of Gibbons, Bonlie and Pfleumer.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 17) and the Appellant’s Brief
(Paper No. 16).
OPINION
The initial burden of establishing a basis for denying
patentability to a claimed invention rests upon the examiner.
See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-
88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007