Appeal No. 1999-2775
Application No. 08/549,847
otherwise have been obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58,
60 (BPAI 1985), aff'd.mem., 795 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir 1986).
Contrary to appellants' position, we do not believe that
resort to appellants' own teachings is necessary in order to
support the combination of Lubbering '242 and Peter, or Lubbering
'242 and the Vortec Catalog. From our viewpoint, hindsight has
not been utilized, since only knowledge which was within the
level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
invention has been employed to derive a reasonable suggestion to
do what the claimed subject matter encompasses, and thus justify
the rejection. For these reasons, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellants' claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Given appellants' grouping of the claims (brief, page 4), we
also sustain the standing § 103 rejection of dependent claims 15
through 17, since these claims fall with independent claim 13.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 7
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lubbering
'242 in view of Peter or the Vortec Catalog, we are in agreement
with appellants position (brief, page 9) that none of the
references applied by the examiner teaches or suggests an
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007