Appeal No. 1997-2681
Application No. 08/211,414
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance
Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087-
88, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
117 S.Ct. 80 (1996), that for the determination of
obviousness, the court must answer whether one of ordinary
skill in the art who sets out to solve the problem, and who
had before him in his workshop the prior art, would have been
reasonably expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
We find that those skilled in the art having the
teachings of Abbott and Fischler before them would have made
the obvious improvement to Appellant’s APA.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007