Appeal No. 2000-1661 Page 6
Application No. 08/964,460
art would not have found suggestion in Reuter to utilize the structure shown in Figure 11 for
vertical applications. From our perspective, the only suggestion for modifying Amey in the
manner proposed by the examiner is found in the hindsight afforded one who first viewed
the appellant’s disclosure which, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection under
3
Section 103. Thus, the combined teachings of Amey and Reuter fail to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 21, and we will
not sustain the rejection of this claim or, it follows, of dependent claims 22, 23, 26-33, 36
and 37.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 21-23, 26-33, 36 and 37 as being unpatentable over Amey
in view of Reuter is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 39-43 as being unpatentable over Amey in view of Reuters
is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
3 In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007