Appeal No. 1997-0547
Application No. 08/020,443
and 483 "constitute a clear teaching of the called for on-line
process." See the prior Board decision at page 4. However,
the prior Board panel indicated that "Hurle and Joyce who are
co-authors of the applied Hurle prior art reference, are also
co-inventors of the present subject matter." Accordingly, the
prior Board panel indicated that in such a situation there
ought to be some "critical review by Hurle and/or Joyce of
what the teachings of this reference would have suggested to
one skilled in the art." See footnote 1 at page 4 of that
decision. The present appeal involves not only amended claims
which are more limited than the claims presented in the prior
appeal but also such a critical review by Hurle as to what the
applied Hurle prior art reference actually would have
suggested to one skilled in the art. In view of the new
evidence of record, i.e., the declaration by Hurle executed
March 11, 1993, and the arguments based on this evidence, it
is our view that the prior interpretation of the prior art
publication to Hurle by the previous Board panel is no longer
applicable.
Respecting the disclosures of the prior art publication
to Hurle, appellants correctly point out in their brief at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007