Appeal No. 96-1856
Application 08/193,324
in Obrea would not have been “reasonably” pertinent to the
artisan and the inventor facing the problems as the inventor
had in this application. Therefore, there appears to be some
merit to appellants' view that the examiner has exercised
impermissible hindsight in applying Obrea.
Since we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we must
reverse the rejection of its dependent claims 2 and 3.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the rejection
of claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as well as the
rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
John C. Martin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007