Appeal No. 97-2806
Application No. 08/391,234
within the same duct by surrounding the fuel injector with the
sensor, as claimed.
While the examiner has certainly found bits and pieces of
the instant claimed subject matter taught by the prior art, as
represented by the applied references, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellant that the only way the artisan would have
reconstructed the instant claimed invention from the teachings of
the cited references would have been by “making modifications to
the prior art structure using appellant’s claims as a blueprint”
[page 3 of the reply brief]. Basing a conclusion of obviousness
on such hindsight is clearly improper under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007