Appeal No. 96-1237
Application No. 07/994,770
of the Admitted Prior Art or for that matter the Cunnington
reference).
Under these circumstances, it is our belief that the prior
art combination proposed by the examiner is the result of
impermissible hindsight reconstruction based upon the appellants’
own disclosure rather than some teaching, suggestion or incentive
based upon the prior art. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 443, 230
USPQ 313, 316 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As a consequence, we cannot
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10 through 12
and 21 as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in view
of Cunnington and further in view of Millard.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007