Appeal No. 1999-1165 Page 7
Application No. 08/753,174
established when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the reasons expressed above, it is our
view that the applied references do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we therefore will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 3-5 and 8-11, which depend therefrom.
The addition of Kolacinski, which was applied against dependent claim 7, does not
cure the defect in Vollers. The rejection of claim 7 is not sustained.
We also will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, which recites the
invention in somewhat different terms than claim 1, but includes the limitations found in the
passages quoted above. Likewise, the rejection of dependent claims 17, 20 and 21 is not
sustained.
Nor will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 18, for the teachings of
Vlasak and Pennington, additionally applied, respectively, to these two claims, also fail to
overcome the problems with the primary reference.
CONCLUSION
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007