Appeal No. 96-3156
Application 08/304,333
claimed system would result in the absence of the guidance
provided by appellants’ disclosure. Finally, it is not clear why
one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify
Steiner in the manner proposed by the examiner. In this respect,
appellants’ argument on page 34 of the brief to the effect that
replacing Steiner’s valves (39) and (47) with a single multi-
function valve would not necessarily reduce manufacturing costs
and assembly time is well taken.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
§ 103 rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007