Appeal No. 1998-2001
Application No. 08/408,688
(2) Claims 36, 37 and 40 on the basis of Curtis in view of
Zimmerman.
(3) Claim 42 on the basis of Curtis in view of Zimmerman.
(4) Claims 38 and 39 on the basis of Curtis in view of
Ambrose.
(5) Claims 43 and 44 on the basis of Curtis in view of Ito.
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
appellant regarding them, we make reference to the Examiner’s
Answer (Paper No. 25) and the final rejection (Paper No. 15),
and to the Appellants’ Briefs (Papers No. 24 and 26).
OPINION
All of the rejections before us are under 35 U.S.C. §
103. The test for obviousness under Section 103 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
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007