Appeal No. 1997-0547
Application No. 08/020,443
crystal growth." See paragraph 7 of the Hurle declaration.
Moreover, while generally no weight is given to expert
testimony on the ultimate issue of obviousness, the level of
skill in the art is a factual matter and is properly the
subject matter of expert testimony. GN v. SW, 57 USPQ2d 1073,
1077 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000). Because the examiner
erroneously disagreed with Hurle's definition of a person of
ordinary skill in the art of crystal growing, the examiner
necessarily erred in discounting Hurle's interpretation of the
relevant disclosures in the relied upon Hurle prior art
reference. In so doing, the examiner committed reversible
error in refusing to allow the now appealed claims for
obviousness.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007