Appeal No. 95-1994
Application 07/732,493
constant as noted earlier at page 3 of the prior art noted in
appellants’ specification as filed.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has properly
weighed in substance the various teachings of the prior art
applied in light of Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers
Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240-41 (Fed.
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1966), which relied
upon In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131
(Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellants’ reliance upon In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993), is inapposite. The prior art
relied upon by the examiner here does in fact discuss and
relate the claimed relationship of the variables of a known
prior art equation in contrast to the fact situation in
Rijckaert. We are also concerned here with method claims
relating to the operation or functioning of a prior art device
exemplified by the prior art to Lalonde relied upon by the
examiner, which prior art also functions in accordance with
the above noted admitted prior art equation. The structural
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007