Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
We find nothing in any of the applied references
teaching or suggesting the use of a condenser on the movable
body. The closest teachings relate to slits or
apertures/filters, e.g., element 9 in Ikeuchi, element 21 in
Katayama. Not only has the Examiner used his “logic and
scientific reasoning” (not references) to come up with a
condenser, he has extended this logic, etc., to place the
condenser on the movable body. We agree with Appellants, the
only motivation evidenced of record is that of hindsight.
Thus, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim
16, and likewise claims 17 through 19 which depend therefrom
and include the same limitation.
Turning to the rejection of claims 22, 24 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner has applied the same
references as applied against claims 16 through 19, with the
addition of Barber. Claims 22, 24 and 25 are dependent claims
which depend from claim 16. Since Barber also does not teach
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007