Appeal No. 98-1031
Application 08/674,667
Metallwerke at the circumferential rib. We are at a loss as
to how, or why, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
considered Metallwerke’s teachings at circumferential rib 11
to be of any relevance to the connection of Christie’s upper
and lower members 8a, 8b together other than through the use
of impermissible hindsight gleaned from first reading
appellant’s disclosure. In light of the foregoing, we will
not sustain the standing rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-11, 17-
19, 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over Christie in view of
Metallwerke.
We have also carefully reviewed the Needham reference
additionally cited by the examiner against claims 4, 15, 16
and 23 but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of Christie and Metallwerke discussed above.
Accordingly, we
also will not sustain the standing rejection of claims 4, 15,
16 and 23 as being unpatentable over Christie in view of
Metallwerke and further in view of Needham.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007