Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
obviousness. The examiner has not established that the
applied prior art teaches or suggests the dimensional
relationships specifically recited in the claims. The fact
that the applied prior art may achieve a result similar to the
claimed invention is not relevant to the question of
obviousness. The examiner has essentially ignored certain
limitations of the claimed invention and shifted the burden to
appellants to show criticality of these limitations. As noted
above, however, the examiner has the initial responsibility to
demonstrate how the claimed invention is taught or suggested
by the applied prior art. The examiner has failed to satisfy
this responsibility in this case.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007