Appeal No. 1998-0308
Application 07/844,879
diverse natures of the different surgical techniques disclosed
by the references, it is apparent that the examiner has
employed the appealed claims as a blueprint to selectively
piece together isolated portions of the prior art in order to
arrive at the appellant’s invention. In this light, we are
satisfied that the applied references fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter on appeal. 3
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 1 through 23 and 25 through 32.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
3 This being so, we find no need to delve into the merits
of the appellant’s 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declaration evidence of
non-obviousness.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007