Appeal No. 1996-2210
Application 08/129,722
facie obvious based on the combined disclosures of Ausubel and Laroche. For the
reasons succinctly set forth in the Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 12 through 24, we hold that
(1) the invention recited in claims 23 through 26 is not the result of Aroutine design choice@
given the combined disclosures of Ausubel and Laroche; and (2) the examiner=s rejection
falls prey to the use of impermissible hindsight.
The examiner=s decision, rejecting claims 23 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, is
reversed.
In conclusion, the examiner=s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR ' 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
)
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007