Appeal No. 93-1883
Application No. 07/759,691
Jones or appellants’ admitted prior art as applied to claims
2,
4 and 11 through 13 above, and further in view of Eichelberger
‘695.
Having carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, it is our conclusion that the above-noted
rejections are not sustainable for essentially those reasons
set forth at pages 17- 22 of the Brief and pages 4-7 of the
Reply Brief. Absent the appellants’ own disclosure, we can
think of no reason why one of ordinary skill in this art would
have been motivated to combine the diverse teachings of Bry,
Eichelberger ‘122, Jones, Eichelberger ‘695, Chihara, Werth
and appellants’ admitted prior art as the examiner has
proposed. As indicated by appellants, we find no suggestion
or motivation to modify the testing device employed in the
testing method of Bry to arrive at the claimed method inasmuch
as Bry, Eichelberger ‘122 and Jones, for example, are directed
to materially different testing methods which employ
completely disparate types of testing devices (different
structures) to promote different purposes. It is well settled
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007