Appeal No. 96-4002
Application No. 08/121,849
disclosure of Leszczynski is replete with digital circuitry.
It is our opinion that the only basis for applying Snyder’s
and Baumoel’s teachings to Leszczynski comes from an improper
attempt to reconstruct Appellant’s invention in hindsight.
Accordingly, we can not sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. Since all of the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 8 are not suggested by
the applied prior art, we can also not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of appealed claims 2-7 and 9-20 which depend
therefrom.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of any of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
103. Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007