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
Winter.
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
the
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of
the invention from the prior art. In making this evaluation,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007