Appeal No. 95-0635
Application 07/768,255
Banauch, Draeger, Tanaka and Lilja (Answer, pages 6 through 11).
In our judgment, however, the examiner does not adequately
explain how the cited prior art would have led a person having
ordinary skill from "here to there," i.e., from the disclosures
of the cited references to appellants' claimed method containing
the limitations outlined above. Ex parte Tanksley, 37 USPQ2d
1382, 1386 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1994). We therefore reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pierre, Banauch, Draeger or Tanaka, either of
those references considered alone or further considered in view
of Lilja.
The examiner's prior art rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN D. SMITH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TEDDY S. GRON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Joseph C. Sullivan
Kane, Dalsimer, Sullivan, Kurucz, Levy
Eisele and Richard
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007