Appeal No. 97-1133
Application 08/424,247
Since we have determined that the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is based on a hindsight reconstruction using
appellant's own disclosure as a blueprint to arrive at the
claimed subject matter from disparate teachings in the prior
art, it follows that we will not sustain the examiner's rejec-
tion of appealed claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Under the authority provided by 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
as amended December 1, 1997, we make the following new rejec-
tion of all of the claims pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 3 through 16 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of
Stulbach or Kivikink and Selph.
As noted on page 1 of appellant's specification in
the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION," Klose (U.S. Patent No.
4,979,775) discloses a windshield shade assembly like that
defined in appellant's pending claims, with the exception that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007