Appeal 1995-2560
Application 07/833,973
degree, the criticality contended for by appellants
exists.
That the teaching of the primary reference upon which the
examiner relies and the reasons the examiner provided in the
Answer for maintaining the final rejection differ from the
teaching in the same reference which we highlight on
consideration of the teaching of the reference as a whole, and
our basis for holding the subject matter claimed in this case
unpatentable, is insufficient to stay our review of the
examiner’s final decision on unpatentability over the evidence
on appeal. To quote Judge Markey writing for the court in In
re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 1165, 201 USPQ 57, 61 (CCPA 1979),
“We review the decision, not the reasoning . . . .”
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision to finally
reject Claims 15-17, 19, 22-30, 50-52 and 70-83 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of Zaffaroni.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to finally reject Claims 15-17,
19, 22-30, 50-52 and 70-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
the teaching of Zaffaroni is hereby affirmed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007