Appeal No. 2000-1491 Page 9
Application No. 09/067,811
etc., might be utilized to give light to the
circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented. As indicia of
obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may
have relevancy.
Thus, initially, the scope and content of the applied
prior art are to be determined. This the examiner has not
done. Next, the differences between the applied prior art and
the claims at issue are to be ascertained. The examiner has
not ascertained the actual differences between the applied
prior art (i.e., Bannai or Sugiyama or Kasahara) and the
claims at issue (i.e., claims 1 to 7). Then, the examiner
must determine if the ascertained differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art (i.e.,
Bannai or Sugiyama or Kasahara) are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. The examiner has not determined that the actual
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and Bannai or Sugiyama or Kasahara are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007