Appeal No. 1998-2833
Application No. 08/585,403
Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185,
188 USPQ 49, 51 (7th Cir. 1975).
When viewed in this context, we are satisfied that the
recitation of “substantially completely filled” in independent
claim 10 would have been viewed by the person of ordinary
skill in this art to merely allow for a reasonable and minor
deviation in completely filling all of the interstices in the
bundle from the bottom of the cup holder to the working face
tips with the foam elastomer.
In order to establish the prima facie obviousness of a
claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985,
180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974). Like appellants, we are unable
to find where in the references it is either taught or
suggested that the adhesive 46 “substantially completely”
fills the interstices between the monofilaments. Since all
the claim limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case for the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007