Appeal No. 96-0154
Application No. 08/047,434
see the publications attached to the Brief as Exhibits 1 and
2). Finally, the examiner's obviousness conclusion is yet
further vitiated by the fact that the applied prior art
contains no teaching or suggestion of a clad sheet having tool
steel carbides, improved abrasion resistance and substantially
no residual stresses as disclosed and claimed by the
appellants.
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our
determination that the rejection before us is based upon the
unwitting application of impermissible hindsight derived from
the appellants' own disclosure rather than some teaching,
suggestion or incentive derived from the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection
of claims 12 through 19 as being unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art or Salesky in view of the Metals Handbook.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007