Appeal No. 95-3270
Application 08/080,689
proposed. In the present case, we believe it is fair to say that
inappropriate reliance upon appellants’ own teaching and
impermissible hindsight would have been the only basis for
bringing the teachings of the Johnson and Toyoda references
together to effect the claimed invention. As to the disclosure
of the Bennett patent, we find that it simply does not overcome
the deficiency noted above relative to the teachings of Johnson
and Toyoda.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 11, 13,
16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27 through 29, 37 through 40, 46, 48, 51,
53, 54, 56, 57, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Toyoda; and
reversed the rejection of claims 6 through 10, 14, 15,
30, 41 through 45, 49, 50, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Toyoda and Bennett.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007