Appeal No. 1997-2840
Application No. 08/265,971
Concerning this last mentioned point, we additionally
agree with the appellant’s argument that the examiner’s above
noted position is not compatible with the disclosure in the
subject specification (see the last full paragraph on
specification page 4) concerning the ineffectiveness of
simultaneous hole-making and sewing in combination with the
section of the “INVENTION DISCLOSURE” wherein a supervisor
stated “[t]he technique has been demonstrated to work”. As
convincingly argued by the appellant, the supervisor’s
statement and thus the “INVENTION DISCLOSURE” as a whole could
not be directed to a method of simultaneous hole-making and
sewing as urged by the examiner in light of the specification
disclosure that such a method or technique, in fact, does not
work.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the section
1.131 affidavit of record is effective in antedating the
Japanese ‘724 reference thereby overcoming the examiner’s
section 103 rejection based upon this reference.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007