Appeal No. 1998-2401
Application 08/286,106
Richman 4,282,647 Aug. 11, 1981
Tamamura et al.(Tamamura) 4,426,247 Jan. 17, 1984
Pitts 4,566,937 Jan. 28, 1986
Jelks et al. (Jelks) 4,612,085 Sep. 16, 1986
Ehrlich et al.(Ehrlich) 4,615,904 Oct. 7, 1986
Dooley et al.(Dooley) 4,897,150 Jan. 30, 1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-12 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Ehrlich
and Jelks.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-13 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Ehrlich
and Tamamura.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ehrlich and Jelks and
further in view of Dooley.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ehrlich and Pitts.
Claims 13, 14, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ehrlich and
Richman.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by the appellants and the examiner, and we reverse each of the
above-mentioned rejections.
We first note that the examiner has the initial burden of
factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness.
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App.& Int. 1985).
We further note that in order for a prima facie case of
obviousness to be established, the teachings from the prior art
itself must appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007