Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
of auxiliary tracks, arranged as claimed, to effect the known
larger cross-section. It is appellants, alone, who teach the
provision of auxiliary tracks which are situated above and
below the connecting tracks, contacting the connecting tracks,
thereby effecting the desired larger cross-sectional area of
the connecting tracks and decreasing resistance. Neither
Jones nor Church teaches or suggests the provision of such
auxiliary tracks. The conclusion of the examiner that it
would have been obvious to employ such auxiliary tracks to
increase the cross-sectional area could only have been reached
through an improper use of hindsight, with appellants’
invention in mind.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1 through 4 and 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Jones and Church.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007