Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 17
Application No. 08/089,810
above another. It appears to us that the examiner has resorted
to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction
to supply the above-noted deficiency in Stewart. In that regard,
it is our opinion that Rosa would not have provided any
suggestion or motivation to modify Stewart's passage 28.
Furthermore, we view Stewart's own teaching that the passage 28
could alternatively be holes provided in the lower portion of
partition 18 for the same effect to be insufficient by itself to
suggest modifying Stewart's passage 28 to be a plurality of
passages one above another.
We have also reviewed Korenberg, Hansen and Potinkara but
find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiency of Stewart
discussed above. Accordingly, we cannot sustain any of the
examiner's rejection of appealed claims 1 through 7, 9 through 24
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007