Appeal No. 1998-0234
Application No. 08,406,752
through 16, 28 through 30, 38 through 54 and 56 through 60
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Having also reviewed the patent to Potter applied by the
examiner along with Boggess and Kornelson against dependent
claim 55 on appeal, we find nothing therein which would
overcome or provide for the deficiencies noted above in the
teachings and/or suggestions of the basic combination of
Boggess and Kornelson. Moreover we agree with appellant's
arguments as set forth on pages 21-23 of the brief that the
examiner has again engaged in an improper hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed subject matter. For those
reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim
55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claims 18, 44 through 53 and 56 through 60 under § 103
as being unpatentable over Boggess in view of Kornelson as
applied above, and further in view of Slavsky. In this
instance, the examiner is of the view that it would have been
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007