Appeal No. 97-1080
Application 08/201,733
relied upon the appellant’s own teachings in arriving at a
conclusion of obviousness. As the court stated in Uniroyal,
837 F.2d at 1051, 5 USPQ2d at 1438, "it is impermissible to use
the claims as a frame and the prior art references as a mosaic
to piece together a facsimile of the claimed invention."
With respect to the rejection of claim 11 based on the
combined teachings of Dowdy, Mandroian and Szwargulski, we have
carefully reviewed the reference to Szwargulski but find nothing
therein which would overcome the deficiencies of Dowdy and
Mandroian that we have noted above.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMES M. MEISTER ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007