Appeal No. 94-3012
Application 07/851,853
before us, it is indisputable that the specification supports the
appellants’ definition.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not find that the
examiner has established through factual evidence, or sound
scientific reasoning, that the combined limitations of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the application was filed. A
conclusion of obviousness must be based on facts, and not
unsupported generalities. In re Freed 425 F.2d 785, 788, 165
USPQ 570, 572 (CCPA 1970); In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007