Appeal No. 2004-0415
Application No. 09/764,743
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1, 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Trimble; and
2) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Trimble and Nolting.
We have carefully considered the appellant’s arguments in
the Brief, but we are not persuaded of reversible error in any of
the examiner’s Section 103 rejections. Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for the findings of fact and conclusions set
forth in the Answer and below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, there must be some objective teachings or
suggestions in the applied prior art and/or knowledge generally
available to a person having ordinary skill in the art that would
have led such person to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
See, generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 24 USPQ2d
1438, 1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(Nies, J., concurring); In re
Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art includes the appellant’s admission regarding what was known
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007