The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MELVIN L. ROWE
and ARTHUR M. KIRBY
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1073
Application 08/488,521
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including the
opposing view of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 8,1 all of the claims in the application,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sakakibara et al.2
It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness is established by showing that some
objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge
1 See specification, pages 7-8.
2 Answer, pages 3-7.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007