Ex parte KUSLICH et al. - Page 9




          Appeal No. 1998-2808                                                        
          Application No. 08/733,464                                                  


          F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In the                
          present case, the examiner has not provided a sufficient                    
          factual basis for concluding that the modification to the                   
          screw threads of Feinberg necessary to meet the limitations of              
          claim 7 would have been obvious.  From our perspective, the                 
          examiner has instead impermissibly relied upon the appellants’              
          own teachings in arriving at a conclusion of obviousness.                   
          This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of                   
          claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.  103 based on Feinberg.                            
               Claims 8 through 10, 15 and 16 are dependent on claim 7                
          and, therefore, contain all of the limitations of that claim.               
          Therefore, we will also not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.                 
          103 rejection of claims 8 through 10, 15 and 16.                            














                                          9                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007