Appeal No. 2000-1346
Application 08/730,516
In light of the foregoing and the fact that neither the
Canadian reference nor Rupp contemplates the contact
maintaining advantage spelled out in claim 1 as being afforded
by the spirally shaped coils, we are constrained to conclude
that the combination of these references advanced by the
examiner stems from an impermissible hindsight reconstruction
of the appellants’ invention. Moreover, this fundamental flaw
in the basic reference combination finds no cure in the
additional references applied by the examiner.
Hence, we shall not sustain any of the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2 through 8.2
2In order to provide its limitations with a proper
antecedent basis, claim 6, which currently depends from claim
1, should be amended to depend from claim 5.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007