Appeal No. 2005-2181 Page 3
Application No. 10/044,268
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being unpatentable over
Pelekhaty in view of Rancourt and Adair as applied to claim 3 and further in view
Goossen.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being unpatentable over
Pelekhaty and Rancourt as applied to claim 1 and further in view Mitsui.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
mailed April 19, 2005 for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief filed September 13, 2004 and the reply brief filed June 21, 2005 for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pelekhaty in view of Rancourt. We initially note that
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007