Appeal No. 2002-2031
Application 09/115,553
reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to solve.”); Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at
473, 5 USPQ2d at 1531 (“The consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is whether
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed process]
should be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in light of the
prior art. [Citations omitted] Both the suggestion and the expectation of success must be founded
in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”).
Accordingly, since there is no evidence in the record that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have combined the teachings of Conn and Kawashima, we agree with appellants that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, and therefore, we reverse all of
the grounds of rejection which are based on these references.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007