Appeal No. 95-3725
Application 07/944,318
start. The only suggestion for an L-shaped circuit board comes
from appellants’ own specification which may not be used against
appellants in hindsight.
We also agree with appellants that there is absolutely no
suggestion on the record before us for combining the teachings of
the applied prior art. The examiner never suggests how or why he
is modifying any of the references based on suggestions from any
of the other references. The three patents cited by the examiner
are individually referred to for teaching the same thing which is
that circuit components are made to fit into an available space.
Why the component fit of one of these patents would be used with
any other one of the patents is not clear, and even if used, how
the modified component fit would suggest the invention as
specifically recited in appellants’ claims is still a mystery to
us. Thus, the examiner has not only failed to provide a
legitimate reason for concluding obviousness, but has also failed
to indicate how the relied upon teachings would have been
combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
Since each of independent claims 11, 13 and 23 recites a
specific relationship between a strobe circuit board and a film
motor, and since the examiner has failed to supply any evidence
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007