Appeal No. 1998-2011
Application No. 08/707,267
U.S.C. § 103 is not made. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA
1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). However,
in this instance, for the reasons which follow, notwithstanding the indefiniteness of some of the
claim terminology, we conprehend the claimed subject matter adequately to determine that the
prior art relied upon by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's
obviousness rejections.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites an electrical heater comprising,
inter alia, a casing unitarily formed by a succession of similarly generally square and inwardly
open U-section rings each having a pair of parallel legs extending transversely of the axis and a
bight portion extending flatly substantially parallel to the axis.
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). Indeed, a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art having
those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or modification. See In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007