Appeal No. 2005-2408 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/783,548
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 19, 2004) and for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed March 12, 2004) and reply brief (filed July 15, 2004) 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.
The examiner has rejected claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Daneshvar in view of Mitra. 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 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only
the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007