Appeal No. 1996-1243
Application No. 08/226,224
really provided a cogent rationale for combining the disparate
teachings of the three applied references. More importantly,
however, the disclosure of Weinblatt does not teach or suggest
the specific steps and means of the claimed invention. Even
if Weinblatt achieved the exact same result as the claimed
invention, a contention which we do not agree with, Weinblatt
does not achieve this result in the manner recited in the
appealed claims. Appellants have indicated how their process
differs from Weinblatt in the reply brief, and the examiner
has offered no response. Since we agree with appellants that
the combined teachings of the applied prior art do not suggest
the obviousness of the claimed invention within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
the appealed claims on this basis.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007