Appeal No. 95-3455
Application 07/945,902
Deere, supra.
Based upon the totality of the evidence before us, it is
our judgment that the examiner has retrospectively concluded
that appellants' invention would have been obvious using
appellants'
claims as a blueprint for his conclusions. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is REVERSED.
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 3 and 5 through 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103, as being unpatentable from appellants' admissions at page
1, lines 17 through 24 considered with any one of Hillman,
Price'343, Price'474 or Koyama et al.
THE PRIOR ART
As we have stated above, the new ground of rejection is
founded, in part, on what we have characterized as
"appellants' admissions". Rejections founded on evidence of
what appellants have conceded to be prior art with respect to
their claimed invention is not without precedent. See In re
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007