Appeal No. 2005-0235 3
Application No. 09/969,291
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of the admitted prior art and Tatematsu.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including all of
the arguments advanced by both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103
rejection is well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for
the factual findings 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 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,
245 USPQ2d 1443, 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
a person having ordinary skill in the art can be imputed from the appellant’s admission
regarding what was known in the art at the time of the invention. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d
566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)(the admitted prior art in an applicant’s
specification may be used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention); in
accord In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007