Appeal No. 96-2393
Application 08/147,961
lants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed December 18, 1995) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination
that the examiner's rejections of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 are not well founded and will therefore not be
sustained. Our reasoning in support of this determination
follows. In addition, we have determined that a remand to the
examiner for further search is necessary in this case.
Looking first at the examiner's basic rejection
relying on Lin, Daniel and Rodgers, we are in agreement with
appellants that the examiner has relied upon impermissible
hindsight and combined these references in light of appel-
lants' own teachings so as to arrive at the claimed subject
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007