Appeal No. 1996-4119
Application No. 08/261,406
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the
examiner’s Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We
further reference appellants’ Brief11 for the appellants’ arguments in favor of
patentability.
CLAIM GROUPING:
Appellants set forth two groupings (Brief, page 5) of claims. Group I: claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 7-20 and 2212 and Group II: claims 5 and 713. Accordingly, we limit our
discussion to claims 1, and 5.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the underlying facts. Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); Continental Can
Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1270, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1750 (Fed. Cir.
1991); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-68, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1595-97 (Fed. Cir. ), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
11 Paper No. 13, received January 29, 1996
12 We note that appellants refer to “[c]laims 1-22” in their grouping of claims (Brief,
page 5). However, claims 3 and 6 were canceled in appellants amendment (Paper
No. 5, received December 5, 1994) and claim 21 was canceled in appellants after
final amendment (Paper No. 8, received September 25, 1995). The typographical
error was corrected herein.
13 See supra, n.5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007