Appeal No. 96-1227
Application 08/134,853
is a factor to be taken into account during the sealing
process to prevent wrinkling. The examiner’s attempt to
overcome these deficiencies in the applied prior art by baldly
stating that the claim limitations in question would have been
within the purview of those of ordinary skill in the art
clearly rests on speculation, unfounded assumptions and/or
hindsight reconstruction.
Moreover, this fundamental flaw in the prior art also
applies to the examiner’s proposed combination of Traise, Klar
and Gerlach in the second 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
2 through 10, 24 and 26.
Thus, the two prior art combinations advanced by the
examiner to support the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections on appeal
fail to provide the factual basis necessary to conclude that
the differences between the subject matter recited in
independent claim 26, and in dependent claims 2 through 10 and
24, and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In summary and for the above reasons, the decision of the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007