Appeal No. 1997-2931
Application 08/237,034
What the examiner has done here, in our view, is unfairly
generalize the teachings of the Kuhnel reference in light of
appellants’ disclosure in order to establish a higher level of
commonality between Kuhnel and the claimed subject matter in
an effort to justify the rejection. This is improper.
In light of the above, we will not sustain the standing
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 under § 103.
We have also reviewed the Steel and Bauling references
additionally relied upon by the examiner in the rejection of
claims 3 and 9, and the Hornbostel reference additionally
relied upon by the examiner in the rejection of claim 5, but
find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of
Sieberth, Murray ‘088, Murray ‘927 and Kuhnel discussed above.
Accordingly, we also will not sustain the standing rejections
of these claims under § 103.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007