Appeal No. 96-2141
Application 07/965,590
that the artisan would have reasonably derived from each and both
references to have justified the examiner’s line of reasoning to
combine the features of the two references to arrive at the
claimed invention without the view of prohibited hindsight of
appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention. That certain
features may have been desirable or could have been desirable to
have been combined from Cliff’s and Noguchi’s teachings, showings
or suggestions is all that we may ascertain from the examiner’s
position and our own consideration of each of the references.
This conclusion of the examiner does not rise to the level of
understanding that is required for a valid rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to the artisan in light of the prior art relied on.
The nature and quality of evidence of obviousness provided
by Cliff and Noguchi, coupled with the examiner’s reasoning, does
not lead us to conclude that the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 26 would have been obvious to the artisan within 35
U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, reach a similar conclusion with
respect to dependent claims 2 through 25.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007