Appeal No. 1999-0349
Application 08/621,379
use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or
‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so
that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992)(citing In re Gorman, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We conclude that the examiner’s determinations have not
been supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan
to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner has
therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. As
the two other independent claims 7 and 9 contain similar
limitations as claim 2, and claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10-14, and 16-
20 depend from claims 2, 7, or 9, the rejection of claims 3,
4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page 12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007