Appeal No. 95-1293
Application 07/727,387
view of Lenz, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,914,040) and Tom, has
been with-drawn. See the Supplemental Answer, Paper No. 23,
paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3. The issue remaining for
review is whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 11,
12, 13, 15 and
16 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Scheefers-Borchel
in view of Stemberger "and, if necessary, further in view of"
Tom.
Discussion
On consideration of the record, including appellants'
main brief (Paper No. 19), the reply brief (Paper No. 22), the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21), and the Supplemental Answer
(Paper No. 23), we reverse the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Appellants argue that when all of the prior art is
considered together, one of ordinary skill would not have a
sufficient basis for the requisite reasonable expectation of
success to sustain a rejection under 35 USC § 103. See In re
Clinton 527 F.2d, 1226, 1228, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007