Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
(3) Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either
Smith or Hoffmann, Bibby, and any one of Biswas, Tittes and
Vogt further in view of any one of Mackey (II), Tittes,
Brimacombe, and Mackey (I);
(4) Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
either Smith or Hoffmann in view of Bibby or either Smith or
Hoffmann, and Bibby further in view of De Bic; and
(5) Claims 11 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over either Smith or Hoffmann, and Bibby further
in view of Ikoma.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejection is not well founded. Our reasons for
this determination follow:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness of a claimed
subject matter cannot be established by combining the
teachings of cited prior art absent some teaching, suggestion
or incentive supporting the combination. See ACS Hospital
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007