Appeal No. 1996-3597 Page 7
Application No. 08/050,825
the additional teachings of Hyde, Mutch, Waller and Kaisha
rather difficult to follow. In our view, the proposed
combination of the disparate teachings of these references
falls significantly short of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness of appellant's method.
We note that it is incumbent upon the examiner to give
weight to all of the method limitations that are specifically
recited in the appealed claims, setting forth how a particular
applied reference meets specified limitation(s) that are
claimed as well as noting all of the differences in the
appealed claims over that applied particular reference, the
proposed modification(s) of that applied reference necessary
to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and an explanation
why such proposed modification(s) would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art from the combined teachings
of all of the applied reference(s) without resort to
appellant's specification.
This the examiner has not done by suggesting that "Frahme
teaches basic process steps..." and "Adiletta teaches a
similar process..." which may be modified by other dissimilar
applied prior art (answer, pages 3-5) without specifically
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007