Appeal No. 1998-2081
Application No. 08/562,009
instance, the examiner has improperly relied upon hindsight in
an attempt to piece together the subject matter required by
the appellant’s claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 20 and 21. It follows
that the standing rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Cohn in view of Hurley cannot be sustained.
We have also reviewed the Leahy reference, applied along
with Cohn and Hurley against claims 3-5 and 9-11, and the
Blakely reference, applied along with Cohn and Hurley against
claims 12-15 and 22-24. In addition, we have considered the
combined teachings of Leahy and Blakely, applied along with
Cohn and Hurley against claims 16-18. In each instance, we
find nothing in Leahy and/or Blakely which makes up for the
deficiencies of Cohn and Hurley noted above. Accordingly, we
also will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
of claims 3-5, 9-18 and 22-24.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Charles E. Frankfort )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007