Ex parte UNGER et al. - Page 5

          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).                        
               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                  
          642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  In                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007