Appeal No. 1998-1553
Application 08/595,965
In this light, we are constrained to conclude that the
only suggestion for combining Vatsky, Henderson and Eaton in
the manner proposed by the examiner so as to arrive at the
subject matter recited in claim 11 stems from hindsight
knowledge improperly derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 11, or of claims 12 through 16 which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Vatsky in view of
Henderson and Eaton.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007