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.
CONCLUSION
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