Appeal No. 97-1403
Application No. 08/275,214
with an absolute pressure gauge. The appellant correctly
concluded (Brief, page 8) that “one of ordinary skill in the art
in the possession of Mattar would only be led to modify the
disclosure of Guimard et al. by employing a minimum of two
absolute pressure recorders in tandem and plotting the absolute
pressure recorded by each device.” In other words, Mattar “does
not disclose utilizing pressure recorders which have both an
absolute and a differential pressure gauge” (Brief, page 9).
Accordingly, we agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, page 10)
that the examiner has resorted to “improper hindsight analysis”
to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed invention. The
obviousness rejection is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007