Appeal No. 1995-4851
Application 08/167,656
1995), that “reliance on per se rules of obviousness is
legally incorrect and must cease.” Furthermore, the panel in
the previous appeal did not have the benefit of the focus on
the evidence provided by the Manzer declaration. For these
reasons, we are not bound by the decision of the previous
panel.
In the present appeal, we have considered and weighed the
entirety of the evidence for and against patentability. We
reverse the herein-appealed rejections. Moreover, to the
extent that our decision in this case is inconsistent with the
decision of the panel in Appeal No. 93-0865, the prior
decision is hereby overruled.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Manzer in view of Groppelli and Scipioni, and under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12
of Corbin in view of Manzer, are reversed.
REVERSED
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007