Appeal No. 1996-4082
Application 08/179,238
Claims 1 to 12 and 18 to 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Lunardi in view of Adlerstein.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answers for the respective details thereof.5
OPINION
It is our view that the prior art relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1
to 12 and 18 to 32. We also find that any conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in the
claims on appeal would necessarily have involved the improper use of hindsight.
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellant (Brief,
pages 6 to 9; Reply Brief, pages 2 to 4) that the claims on appeal would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in light of the collective teachings of
Lunardi and Adlerstein. For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain the decisions of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 12 and 18 to 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5We note that the after final amendment dated February 27, 1995, was entered as per the Advisory Action
of March 29, 1995; and the Reply Brief and accompanying amendment dated April 8, 1996, have been entered and
considered by the examiner (see Supplemental Answer, page 1).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007