Appeal No. 95-0125
Application 07/818,162
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We fully appreciate the examiner’s assessment of the
applied references and the manner in which it is proposed that
they be combined, as articulated in the body of the rejection.
However, when we consider the Auth and Airpot reference
teachings together, setting aside what appellant has informed
us of in the
present application, we do not perceive that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have derived therefrom a suggestion to
selectively alter the air bearing arrangement of Auth, as
proposed, based upon the disclosure within the Airpot
document.
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007