Appeal No. 2005-2013 Page 3
Application No. 10/140,324
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Hills et al. (Hills) 5,685,914 Nov. 11, 1997
Murakami et al. (Murakami) 5,728,223 Mar. 17, 1998
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Hills and Murakami. (Final Rejection, pp. 4-7).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not well founded.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to Appellants'
Brief filed August 27, 2004, Reply Brief filed December 28, 2004 and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 11, 2005 and the Final Rejection mailed March 22, 2004.
OPINION
To hold an invention obvious in view of a combination of references, there must
be some suggestion, motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to select the reference teachings and combine them in
a way that would produce the claimed invention. See, e.g., Heidelberger
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007