Appeal No. 96-0561
Application 08/055,584
contrast to the examiner's position, it does not appear to us
that this reference would have fairly taught or motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to use flat-stock spring steel to make
the elements (3) in Hirmer. As for the examiner's assertion
(answer, page 4) that one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to use flat stock "in order to advantageously provide
smooth guiding surfaces," we find such reasoning to be at best
hollow and self-deceptive. Since we have determined that the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on a hindsight
reconstruction using appellant's own disclosure as a blueprint
to arrive at the claimed subject matter, it follows that we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6
and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Hirmer and
Rossmann.
To summarize:
We have affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Hirmer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007