Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
examiner in reaching the above-noted obviousness conclusion.
Moreover, as we noted above, we are in agreement with the
examiner’s reasoning and conclusion that the combined teachings
of Copley, Bradshaw and Prinz would have rendered obvious the
method set forth in claim 61 on appeal. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Bradshaw
and Prinz.
As for claims 62 through 73 and 97 through 109, these
remaining claims of appellants’ second grouping of claims on
appeal are considered to fall with claim 61 and, thus, the
examiner’s rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are likewise sustained.
In further response to appellants’ arguments above, we
observe that where the issue is one of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the proper inquiry should not be limited to the
specific structure shown by a reference, but should be into the
concepts fairly contained therein, with the overriding question
to be determined being whether those concepts would have
suggested to one skilled in the art the modification called for
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007