Appeal No. 97-2486
Application No. 08/308,983
teachings of Stasz (which has tracings on both sides of the
non-conductive body) were applied to the non-conductive body
of Eggers it would render Eggers' device non-functional, we
must point out that all of the features of the secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary
reference (see In re Keller, at 642 F.2d 425, 208 USPQ 881)
and the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the
exercise of independent judgment (Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Here, it is the primary reference to Eggers that
teaches providing the electrically conductive material or
tracing only on one side of the non-conductive body.
For the reasons stated above, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
combined teachings of Eggers and Stasz.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejection:
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007