Appeal No. 95-3890
Application 08/023,665
of consecutive rows, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The only basis on this record to make
the collective teachings of Kuijk and Piper equate to the claimed
invention would result from a hindsight reconstruction of the
disclosed invention, and such reconstruction would be improper.
For all the reasons just discussed, the record in this
case does not support the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 4.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kuijk,
Piper and Hamada. Appellant indicates that these claims stand or
fall together [brief, page 5]. These claims are all dependent
claims which depend from claim 1. For reasons discussed above,
the invention of claim 1 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Kuijk and Piper. Therefore, the first question to
be considered is whether the teachings of Hamada overcome the
deficiencies present in the rejection of claim 1.
Hamada was cited only for its teaching of a picture
device having components in the shape of a hexagon. This hexagon
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007