Appeal No. 1997-4365 Application 08/469,726 omitted.]”). Accordingly, it is manifest that the only direction to appellants’ claimed invention as a whole on the record before us is supplied by appellants’ own specification. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991), citing In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531(Fed. Cir. 1988)(“Both the suggestion and the reasonable expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.”). The examiner’s decision is reversed. Reversed BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) THOMAS A. WALTZ ) Administrative Patent Judge ) - 5 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007