Appeal No. 1998-2601
Application 08/809,052
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354
F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Under the facts of this case, we find that the
examiner has failed to provide us with a record that
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness because the
rationale is speculative at best and there is no motivation
gained from the applied prior art for combining their
teachings. The only motivation for combining the teachings of
the references improperly comes from appellant’s own
disclosure. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007