Appeal No. 98-2413
Application 08/763,549
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determina-
tions which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's prior art rejection
of claims 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we are in full
agreement with appellant’s position as set forth on pages 5
and 6 of the brief, that the examiner's modification of Deacon
in the
specific manner posited in the examiner’s answer (pages 3-4)
is based on the hindsight benefit of appellant's own teachings
and
not on anything fairly suggested by the applied references
themselves. Thus, we will not sustain the examiner's rejec-
tion of claims 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007