Appeal No. 1999-0032 Page 3
Application No. 08/525,407
Examiner’s Answers (Paper Nos. 15 and 19) and to the
Appellant’s Briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 25).
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellant as set forth in the Answers and the
Briefs. As a result of our review, we have determined that
neither of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning
in support of this conclusion follows.
The test for obviousness 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 prior art reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Ex
parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007