Appeal No. 1998-3060 Page 6
Application No. 08/703,932
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, the declaration
of James E. Heider (Paper No. 6, filed January 16, 1996) and
to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and
the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us,
it is our conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to
establish a case of obviousness with respect to the claims
under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4 to 16, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
A case of obviousness is established by presenting
evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive
at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007