Appeal No. 1998-1805
Application No. 08/596,734
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, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 14) and to the Appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 13).
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 the
rejection should not be sustained. Our reasoning in support
of this conclusion follows.
All of the claims stand rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007