Appeal No. 2004-1753 Page 4
Application No. 09/524,086
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
evidence of nonobviousness submitted by the appellants, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will not sustain any of the rejections under appeal for the reason which
follows.
In resolving the questions of obviousness/nonobviousness before us in this
appeal, it is necessary to weigh the entire merits of the matter and to consider all of the
evidence of record. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). We are mindful that objective evidence of nonobviousness in any given case is
entitled to more or less weight depending on its nature and its relationship with the
merits of the claimed invention. Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539,
218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, the evidence of nonobviousness submitted
by the appellants must be considered en route to a determination of
obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we must carefully
evaluate both the teachings of the applied prior art and the evidence of nonobviousness
supplied by the appellants. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444-45 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007