Appeal No. 2005-0267
Application No. 09/982,154
377, 381, 148 USPQ 197, 200 (CCPA 1966); In re Billingsley,
279 F.2d 689, 691, 126 USPQ 370, 372 (CCPA 1960). Rather, the
proper inquiry under § 103 is what the references, taken
collectively, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882
(CCPA 1981). In the present case, the separate arguments
advanced by appellant for each claim on appeal fail to set forth
a rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered it nonobvious to modify the high voltage cable of
Hastings '827 in the manner proposed by the examiner.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the forgoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007