Appeal No. 96-2562
Application 08/214,858
As for the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and
14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we find appellants'
arguments on pages 4-6 of the brief to be persuasive of error
on the examiner's part. Like appellants, we are of the opin-
ion that the examiner's analysis regarding this rejection
constitutes improper hindsight reasoning based upon appel-
lants' own teachings and not upon any reasonable teaching or
suggestion found in the applied prior art reference to Marks.
The examiner's contention (answer, page 4) that to change the
ball size in Marks to be of a diameter which is radially
larger than the diameter of the coil therein would have been
"simply an obvious design modification known to one skilled in
the art," has no evidential basis in the record before us and
is based purely on speculation.
In accordance with the foregoing, we have sustained
the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 14
through 16 under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting, but reversed the examiner's rejection of these same
appealed claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007