Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
Having carefully considered the content of the claims on
appeal, the scope of the applied prior art and the respective
viewpoints advanced by the appellant and the examiner, we shall
not sustain any of the examiner’s rejections.
The manner in which the examiner has combined the references
applied in support of the various rejections (see pages 3 through
9 in the main answer) indicates that the proposed combinations
are based on improper hindsight rather than on the teachings,
suggestions and inferences of the references themselves. Thus,
the rejections as set forth by the examiner are fundamentally
unsound.
More particularly, the examiner justifies the proposed
combinations of Engvall or Frank or Wolsh in view of Andre or
Copell (rejections a, b, c, d, f, g, i, j, k and l) by concluding
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the holder devices disclosed in the primary
references by incorporating grooves as in Andre or Copell to
provide the holding devices with a more secure retention
capability. Neither Andre nor Copell, however, teaches or
suggests that the grooves in the devices disclosed therein
provide this capability.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007