Ex parte REINER et al. - Page 3

                                                                                                   Page 3                
              Appeal No. 1998-1373                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/377,473                                                                                 

                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                   
              appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper                    
              No. 17 ) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the                    
              Revised Brief (Paper No. 16 ) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                  
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                 
              appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                      
              respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of                  
              our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                       
                     The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to evaluating the issue of                 
              the obviousness of the appealed claims in the light of the applied prior art is as follows:  A             

              prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art itself                  

              would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the                  
              art (see In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).  This is                   
              not to say, however, that the claimed invention must expressly be suggested in any one or                  
              all of the references, rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the              
              references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Cable Elec.                       
              Prods. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir.                              
              1985)), considering that a conclusion of obviousness may be made from common                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007