Appeal No. 2000-1121
Application No. 08/827,656
as being anticipated by Rutherford.
Concerning the Section 103 rejection based on Rutherford
alone, the examiner states that “since Rutherford teaches that
these articles can be used for a variety [of] products and
that in another embodiment of the invention these articles can
be incorporated into filters (such as those used in
cigarettes); column 3, lines 40-45, and since it is taught
that filters (such as those used in cigarettes) are known to
be wrapped in paper (col. 9, lines 20-25, Figure 4, #15) then
it would have been obvious to put an anti-static rod-like
article in a filter that is wrapped in paper; for use i.e.[,]
in the laundry, not for use with a smokable cigarette”
(answer, page 5). Like the appellants, we regard the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as not well founded.
It is well settled that obviousness under Section 103
requires a suggestion to modify the prior art in the manner
proposed by the examiner. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902,
7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The mere fact that the
prior art could be modified (i.e., in such a manner as to
achieve the claimed invention) would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007