Appeal No. 95-3056
Application 07/833,718
combination of prior art teachings. There must be a
reason
or suggestion in the art for selecting the procedure
used,
other than the knowledge learned from the applicant’s
disclosure.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s holding of
unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-3, 7-13,
and 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
teaching of either Miyasaka or Matsuda in view the teaching of
Weygand.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007