Appeal No. 1997-3420
Application No. 08/371,227
Claims 4, 6, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Braeuer in view of Bourez, Zejda,
Anderle and Zejda et al.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the rejection, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 14) and the Appellants’ Brief
(Paper No. 13).
OPINION
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, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner
to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007