Appeal No. 95-3606
Application 07/827,691
our earlier claim interpretation. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974) (An old or obvious
composition would not undergo a metamorphosis to a new or
unobvious composition by labeling its container to show that
the composition is suitable for another purpose.)
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of
method Claims 41, 10, 15, 27, 6, 9, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Kremer, Innis I,
and Innis II and the examiner’s rejection of method Claim 11
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the combined teachings of Kremer, Innis I,
Innis II, and Mullis. However, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of Claims 42 and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
of the combined teachings of Kremer, Innis I, and Innis II.
While we affirm the examiner’s conclusion to reject Claims 42
and 29-33 in view of the combined teachings of Kremer, Innis
I, and Innis II, we do so on the basis of new interpretations
of the language and scope of the invention of Claim 42 and
prior art teachings which either differ markedly from those of
the examiner or were not specifically considered by the
examiner. Accordingly, our affirmance of the examiner’s
rejection of Claims 42 and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007