Appeal No. 2001-0558
Application No. 08/966,708
than the cross-package length of the multicell cuvettes as
also recited in claim 32. Clearly, the examiner has resorted
to hindsight reconstruction to supply the manifest
deficiencies in this prior art combination. Furthermore,
these deficiencies find no cure in Shelton’s disclosure of a
powered fastener tool nail strip and/or Winski’s disclosure of
tacky spacing sheets for a palletizing system.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of independent claim 32, and dependent claims
3 through 8 and 22 through 25, as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Witty, or the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 9, 10 and 33 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Witty,
Winski and Shelton.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007