The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DONALD ARTHUR REYNOLDS
______________
Appeal No. 2005-1484
Application 09/486,875
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellant, in the brief1 and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1, 9, 11 and
12,2 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Eagles in view of Mathellier.3
It is well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under
§ 103(a), the examiner must show that some objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the
applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
1 We consider the brief filed July 27, 2004.
2 See the appendix to the brief and the amendment filed July 27, 2004.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007