Appeal No. 2005-1220
Application No. 09/270,606 Page 17
we again reiterate that the direction to the claimed invention
suggested by the prior art need not be by way of the same
motivating force as appellant may disclose for their invention.
Rather, the applied references, as is the case here, can make out
a sustainable case of obviousness premised on one of ordinary
skill in the art being led to subject matter corresponding to the
claimed subject matter for reasons distinctly different than
reasons that appellant may have developed.
It follows that, on this record, we will sustain the
examiner’s obviousness rejection of the appealed claims.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kodera in view of
Grover and Burke is affirmed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007