Appeal No. 2001-1355
Application No. 09/110,348
light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for combining
Karge and MacCracken so as to arrive at the invention set
forth in claims 1 and 9 stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent
claims 2 through 4, 7 and 8, as being unpatentable over Karge
in view of MacCracken.
As Little’s disclosure of a portable cooling mat assembly
comprising a submersible pump does not cure the foregoing
deficiency in the basic Karge-MacCracken combination, we also
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 5 and 11 as being unpatentable over Karge in view of
MacCracken and Little.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 1 through 5, 7 through 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed;
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007