Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
simply represent alternative venting channel constructions.
That is, when presented with their respective teachings, we
believe one of ordinary skill in the art would simply choose
one channel construction or the other, rather than attempt to
selectively combine them in the manner that would produce the
claimed invention.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 3-10. Accordingly, we need not consider the
appellants’ evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., the declaration
under 37 CFR § 1.132 of coinventor Robert S. Sporzynski. In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
New Rejection Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new rejections.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by published UK patent application 2,057,609 to
Soltis, made of record by the examiner during prosecution.6
6See Form PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, included
as an attachment to the initial office action (Paper No. 3) in
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007