Ex parte NADEL et al. - Page 5

              Appeal No. 1998-2028                                                                      Page 5                 
              Application No. 08/365584                                                                                        

              found, as the appellants opined, in the luxury of the hindsight accorded one who first                           
              viewed the appellants’ disclosure.  This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.                      
              See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                    
                      A prima facie case of obviousness therefore has not been established with regard                         
              to the subject matter of independent claim 1.  This being the case, the rejection of claim 1                     
              is not sustained nor, it follows, is the like rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 10 and 12, which                       
              depend therefrom.                                                                                                
                      The teachings of Katzman and Osborne, cited against others of the dependent                              
              claims, fail to alleviate the above-stated deficiency in Konta and Cocca.  The rejections of                     
              claims 5, 9 and 11 also are not sustained.                                                                       
                      None of the rejections are sustained.                                                                    
                      The decision of the examiner is reversed.                                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007