Appeal No. 1998-0910
Application No. 08/454,596
obviousness itself, would have provided the motivation for
such a major
overhaul. Since the evidence before us would not have been
suggestive of the content of, in particular claim 1, the
examiner’s rejection of appellant’s claims must be reversed.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite; and
reversed the rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Burns in view of Ushitora and
Oldfelt.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007