Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
be attached. Therefore, the rejection fails to correctly
identify the differences between the claimed invention and the
teachings of the applied prior art. Since the differences
between the invention of claims 19-21 and the prior art have
not been properly identified, the obviousness of these
differences has not been established by the examiner.
We also note with respect to this rejection that the
combination of the teachings of Fong with Wickstead appears to
be based entirely on a desire to reconstruct the claimed
invention in hindsight. We can see no reason why the artisan
would look to Wickstead to modify the Fong device. These
references have no relationship to each other except in the
examiner’s hindsight reconstruction of the invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, appellants have not satisfied the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192 to have the claims considered
separately for patentability. We have sustained the
individual rejections of claims 37-46, claims 3-6, 8-18, 35
and 36, and claims 22-24. We have not sustained the rejection
of claims
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007