Appeal No. 1998-0294
Application No. 08/318,726
(1) Claims 1, 8 and 9 on the basis of the Japanese reference
and Schladitz.
(2) Claims 2-7 on the basis of the Japanese reference,
Schladitz and Desage.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answers
(Papers No. 20 and 23) and to the Appellants’ Briefs (Papers
No. 19 and 21).
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief. As a result of our review, and applying the guidance
provided by our reviewing court, we have determined that none
of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning in
support of this conclusion follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007