Appeal No. 1996-4035 Page 7
Application No. 08/257,431
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to provisionally reject claims 22-25 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is affirmed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In rejecting claims
under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear
to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007