Appeal No. 1998-1426
Application No. 08/315,350
one skilled in the art who is presented only with the
references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted
wisdom in the art." Id.
Since we have determined that the examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness is based on a hindsight reconstruction using
appellants' own disclosure as a blueprint to arrive at the
claimed subject matter, it follows that we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 17,
or of claims 2, 10, 13, 18 and 20, dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss.
We have additionally reviewed the patents to Lindquist,
Gelin and De Benedittis applied by the examiner against
dependent claims 3, 4, 5 and 30, however, we find nothing in
these references which provides for that which we have
indicated above to be lacking in the basic combination of
Durkop and Bliss.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejections of dependent claims 3,
4, 5 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be
sustained.
We next turn to the examiner’s rejection of independent
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007