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