Appeal No. 1998-1942 Page 8
Application No. 08/530,254
steps are clear since they help to define the metes and bounds
of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 23-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner's reasons for rejecting claims 23-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are set forth on pages 5-7 of the answer.
With respect to claims 23 and 41 (the independent claims on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007