Ex parte HELT - Page 3




                Appeal No. 1999-1051                                                                            Page 3                   
                Application No. 08/652,740                                                                                               


                                                              OPINION                                                                    
                        In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                              
                appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective                                   
                positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our                                
                reviewing court.  As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which                                       
                follow.                                                                                                                  
                        All of the rejections are under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  The test for obviousness is what the                           
                combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.                            
                See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  In                                    
                establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to                                     
                provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior                              
                art reference or to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex                              
                parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite                                  
                motivation must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a                                   
                whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not                              
                from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837                            
                F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).                                     
                        The appellant’s invention is directed to an improvement in apparatus for generating                              
                a spark for igniting devices such as gas appliances.  It is pointed out in the specification                             









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007