Appeal No. 2000-2033
Application 08/331,851
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Caron in view of Kopp.
Claims 1 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kopp in view of Caron.1
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Caron in view of Kopp and further in view of
Watkins.
Claims 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kopp in view of Caron and further in view of
Watkins.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied
prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 1, 4 through 6 and 7 through 10 on appeal.
1 Unlike the examiner, we do not consider the order in which prior art is applied in a
rejection to be significant. See, for example, In re Bush 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267
(CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each
containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a
matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A
in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other
secondary."); In re Cook, 372 F.2d 563, 152 USPQ 615 (CCPA 1967).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007