Appeal No. 1996-0783 Page 6
Application No. 08/102,297
We cannot subscribe to the examiner's proposed
modification since the examiner has not established that (1)
the degree of compression of the separation matrix and
adjacent detection means and (2) aperture size in a cover
therefore relative to the separation matrix cross-sectional
area were recognized in the art as result effective variables.
Absent a prior art teaching of the result effectiveness of the
above-noted parameters as a predicate for the proposed
modification, the examiner's proposed rejections cannot be
sustained. Compare In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ
6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977). We note that neither of the variously
applied secondary references (Vuorinen nor Lamos) remedies
this deficiency.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejections based on this record.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-13, 16 and 19-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ertinghausen; claims 14, 15, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007