Ex parte ETAO HUANG - Page 7

          Appeal No. 96-4017                                                          
          Application 08/217,544                                                      

          1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.           
          1057 (1968).                                                                

                    In this case, essentially for the reasons stated by               
          appellant in the brief (pages 4-8) and reply brief, we find that            
          the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103 is not                       
          sustainable.  Like appellant, we are of the opinion that the                
          examiner has inappropriately relied upon hindsight and improperly           
          used appellant's own disclosure and teachings as a guide through            

          prior art references and the maze of individual features thereof            
          in attempting to combine selected ones of those features in a               
          modification of the Wu antitheft device so as to arrive at the              
          claimed subject matter.                                                     

                    Moreover, even if the references were combined as urged           
          by the examiner, we share appellant's view that the antitheft               
          device defined in claim 1 on appeal would not have been the                 
          result, since the examiner's factual finding that Lien teaches or           
          discloses "a rod member 5 having annular grooves with vertical              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007