Appeal No. 1998-0106
Application No. 08/377,753
problem pertaining to the printing and slotting locations
in the Takeda patent.
In any event, even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that the Takeda patent constitutes analogous art
and even if it assumed for the sake of argument that Takeda
suggests the feature defined in the penultimate clause of
claim 15, we nevertheless cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 15. In the present case, the examiner has failed to
advance any evidentiary basis to support a conclusion that
the difference pertaining to the relative positions of the
spherical cup and the outer ring, as defined in the third
from the last clause of claim 15, is such that appellants=
claimed invention would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. As a result, the examiner=s
' 103 rejection of claims 15-18, 20-22, 24 and 26 fails for
lack of a sufficient factual basis. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007