Appeal No. 1997-3301
Application No. 08/159,879
(in a determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it
is impermissible to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of
the claimed invention, using the applicant’s structure as a
template and selecting elements from references to fill the
gaps).
The teachings of Horigome and Hayashi fail to cure the
deficiencies of Ohtaka, Suzuki, Isono and Trotta. Therefore,
for the reasons set forth above, we are constrained to reverse
the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Ohtaka in view of the various combinations of Isono, Suzuki,
Trotta, Horigome and/or Hayashi.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on written description and enablement for the
following reasons (Answer, p. 4):
The appendix referred to page 3/line 9, page
5/line 6, page 8/line 14, page 9/line 9 is missing.
Also none of the programs are disclosed. Also means
for attaching the polymeric film to a means for
rotation is not disclosed.
It appears that the programs referred to by the examiner are
four macro routines which are said to generate an exact scale
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007