Appeal No. 2000-1665
Application 08/752,529
Having arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of
obviousness as applied by the examiner in the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 12 through 17, 19 through 32 and 35
is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
we also recognize that evidence of secondary considerations,
such as that presented by appellant in this application must
be considered and weighed in route to a determination of
obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we consider anew the issue of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating and weighing both the
evidence relied upon by the examiner and the objective
evidence of nonobviousness provided by appellant. See
Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218
USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant has submitted five declarations, i.e., from
Stanley C. Valiulis, Robert W. Harrell, Carol Hopson, Theodore
J. Stipanovich, and Frank N. Shope. According to the examiner
(answer, page 13), those declarations are of little weight
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007