Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 13
Application No. 08/213,933
agree. As with the examiner's determinations with respect to
claims 1 and 7, the examiner's determination of obviousness
with respect to claim 13 has not been supported by any
evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. As with claims 1 and 7, it is our belief
that the only suggestion for modifying Perry in the manner
proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitations
stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's
own disclosure. It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claim 13, and claims 14
and 22 dependent thereon.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007