Appeal No. 97-1400
Application 08/394,409
As for the examiner's further assertion that Prochaska,
Figure 4, when viewed upside down, shows the extreme lower end of
the contact therein having a distance (N) below the bottom of the
slot (20) that "appears to be no more than one-quarter of [the]
height of the slot" (final rejection, page 3), we find Figure 4
of Prochaska to be ambiguous due to the excessive inking of the
drawing, particularly in the area of the ends of the slot (20),
so that any such determination or measurement is at best
speculative. We note, however, that our own measurement of the
distance (N) relative to the length of the slot in Prochaska
Figure 4 is in accord with appellant's determination (brief,
pages 6-7 and 9), and shows that the distance (N) between the
bottom of the slot (20) and the extreme end of the contact is
most likely greater than 25% of the slot length.
Considering (1) the distinct differences between the
configurations of the contacts of Prochaska and Rozmus, and
(2) the arguments made by appellant in both the brief and the
reply brief, it is our opinion that the examiner's combination of
Prochaska and Rozmus is based on impermissible hindsight derived
from appellant's own teachings and not from the prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007