Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
We further note that even assuming, arguendo, that the
recited limitations of the appealed claims are found in
various ones of the prior art references, the Examiner’s
rejection is totally lacking in any rationale as to how and
why the skilled artisan would modify the prior art to arrive
at the claimed invention. We are left to speculate why one of
ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify any of
the applied prior art to make the combination suggested by the
Examiner. The only reason we can discern is improper
hindsight reconstruction of Appellants' claimed invention.
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness since all of the limitations of the
appealed claims are not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not
sustained.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007