Appeal No. 2002-1671 Page 10
Application No. 08/993,985
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to have modified Chaikof's tubular structure to be annealed as required by claim 63.
Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 63 since the examiner has not found that it would have been obvious to
to an artisan at the time the invention was made to have modified Chaikof's tubular
structure to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chaikof in view of
Berg is reversed.
Claims 19 to 21, 36, 37, 39 to 49, 51 to 55, and 64 to 66
The decision of the examiner to reject dependent claims 19 to 21, 36, 37, 39 to
49, 51 to 55, and 64 to 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chaikof in
view of Berg is reversed for the reasons set forth above with respect to their parent
claim (i.e., independent claim 63).
Claim 1
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-12; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that the subject matter
of claim 1 is not taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Chaikof and Berg.
We do not agree for the following reasons.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007