Ex parte AUGUSTO MARCHETTI - Page 4




          Appeal No. 95-2598                                                          
          Application 08/021,230                                                      



                    Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as            
          being unpatentable over Warshaw in view of Ulrich.                          


                    Claims 4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103            
          as being unpatentable over Warshaw in view of Ulrich as applied             
          to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Cavanagh.                   


                    Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as            
          being unpatentable over Warshaw in view of Ulrich as applied to             
          claim 1 above, and further in view of Twigg.                                


          OPINION                                                                     
                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given            
          careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to           
          the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions           
          articulated by appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of             
          our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's              
          rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.  103 will not            
          be sustained. Our reasons follow.                                           


                    A rejection based on  103 must rest on a factual                 
          basis, with the facts being interpreted without hindsight                   
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007