Appeal No. 97-0071
Application No. 08/263,033
It is our conclusion that the only reason to combine the
teachings of the applied prior art references in the manner
proposed by the examiner results from a review of the appellant's
disclosure and the application of impermissible hindsight. Thus,
we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of independent claims
1 and 11, or of claims 2, 3, 5 through 10, 13 through 15 and 18
through 21 dependent thereon , under 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1 through 3, 5 through 11, 13 through 15 and 18 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
2We have also reviewed the Vartanian reference additionally
applied in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 (dependent on claim 1)
and the Marcheck reference applied in the rejection of claim 20
(dependent on claim 11) but find nothing therein which makes up
for the deficiencies discussed above regarding claims 1 and 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007