Ex parte KREMSMAIR et al. - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1999-0721                                                        
          Application No. 08/683,826                                                  

          For the above reasons, we refuse to sustain the                             
          examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.                     
          103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Taylor or                

          Nor shall we sustain the examiner’s other rejection under                   
          35 U.S.C.  103(a). We have carefully reviewed the patent to                
          Nels applied by the examiner in the rejection of dependent                  
          claims 7 and 8, but find nothing therein which would provide                
          for the teachings and/or suggestions which we have already                  
          determined to                                                               
          be lacking in the examiner’s stated basic combination of Bauer              
          and Taylor or Winter.                                                       

          In regard to the examiner’s attempted combination of                        
          Bauer and Taylor or Winter, we note that it is well settled                 
          that a                                                                      
          rejection based on  103 must rest on a factual basis, with                 

          facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of                 
          the invention from the prior art. In making this evaluation,                

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007