Appeal No. 96-2692
Application 08/310,892
modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The Examiner has failed to show that the prior art
would have suggested to those skilled in the art any reason to
make the proposed modification to Allen. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the above, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision that Appellants’ claims 1, 7 and 15 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but we
reverse the Examiner’s decision that Appellants’ claims 1, 7
and 15 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. There-
fore, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
con- nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007