Appeal No. 1999-2790
Application No. 08/794,530
Since all the limitations of appellant's independent
claims 1 and 10 are not found in Wall, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 (and claims 5 through 9 which depend
therefrom) and of method claim 10 (and claims 12 and 13 which
depend therefrom) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) relying on Wall
will not be sustained.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5 through
9 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Wall and Kreamer,
we share appellant's view as expressed on pages 7 through 10
of the brief, that the examiner has again engaged in rank
speculation concerning the teachings of Wall and Kreamer, and
that the examiner's position amounts to nothing more than an
attempted hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention
through picking and choosing isolated and unrelated elements
from the prior art references. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5 through 9
on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007