Appeal No. 96-4017
Application 08/217,544
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968).
In this case, essentially for the reasons stated by
appellant in the brief (pages 4-8) and reply brief, we find that
the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not
sustainable. Like appellant, we are of the opinion that the
examiner has inappropriately relied upon hindsight and improperly
used appellant's own disclosure and teachings as a guide through
the
prior art references and the maze of individual features thereof
in attempting to combine selected ones of those features in a
modification of the Wu antitheft device so as to arrive at the
claimed subject matter.
Moreover, even if the references were combined as urged
by the examiner, we share appellant's view that the antitheft
device defined in claim 1 on appeal would not have been the
result, since the examiner's factual finding that Lien teaches or
discloses "a rod member 5 having annular grooves with vertical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007