Appeal No. 96-3418
Application No. 08/317,135
103, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of4
claims 2, 3, 5 and 6.
The other rejection under Section 103 is that claims 8-12
and 15 are unpatentable over Neracher taken together with
Strong. These claims depend from claim 7, and Strong has been
cited for the particular valve structure which the examiner
believes would have been an obvious modification to the
Neracher device. Be
that as it may, Strong does not overcome the shortcomings of
Neracher as a primary reference, and we therefore will not
sustain this rejection.
Summary
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Irwin Charles Cohen )
4The test for obviousness is what the teachings of the
prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007