Appeal No. 95-2980
Application 08/048,343
steps 11 to 16 of appellant’s disclosed flowchart Fig. 2.
However, we note that such is apparently admitted to be a part
of the prior art as expressed in the specification at p. 4,
lines 4 through 11 and p. 5, lines 5 through 10. We are
therefore left with what amounts to, in our view, a prohibited
hindsight analysis of the examiner utilizing Marino’s general
teachings of computerized sequential testing of a device under
test. Alternatively, we do not see any rationale that the
artisan would have derived from the collective teachings of
the three references relied upon that would have led him to
modify Stelling’s teachings to perform any test of the
suppression signal means of his own TCAS system.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 11, 14 and 16 to 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 must be reversed. As such, and because Ybarra
fails to correct these deficiencies, the additional rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007