Appeal No. 1999-1927
Application No. 08/499,367
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of De La Riboisiere in view of Perkins. Claim 3 also stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Linder in view of Perkins or
Kawada.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim 3. Accordingly, we
reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007