Appeal No. 2001-2392 Page 3
Application No. 09/114,962
Claims 16-19, 21-24, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Breed in view of Spies.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 19) and the final rejection (Paper No. 6) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 22)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007