Appeal No. 97-2968
Application 08/531,077
passes along a horizontal path through the printing station or
(2) vector forces of the print hammers striking against the
ribbon during the printing operation (see column 4, lines 34-43).
Absent the appellant’s own teachings, we are at a loss to
understand why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to single out the crowned roller “shape” from the
disparate teachings of Moss and incorporate it into the device of
Roller for the purpose of facilitating winding of Roller’s belts
30 about belt take-up member 46. The examiner may not pick and
choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support
a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to
the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v.
Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448, 230 USPQ 416,
419 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823 (1987) and In re
Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-02 (CCPA 1972).
Since we are of the opinion that the examiner has
impermissibly relied on the appellant’s own teachings in arriving
at a conclusion of obviousness, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 4-12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roller in view of Moss.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007