Appeal No. 95-4985
Application No. 08/164,227
cogent reason why one of ordinary skill in this art would have
been motivated to combine the disparate teachings of these
references in the manner proposed by the examiner. As the
court in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051,
5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988) stated, "it is
impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior art
references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of the
claimed invention."
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
MARC L. CAROFF )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007