Appeal No. 1998-2614
Application No. 08/731,713
impermissible hindsight. See W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). The remaining prior
art references relied on by the examiner for the features
recited in certain dependent claims do not remedy the
deficiencies indicated above.
Under these circumstances, we are constrained to agree
with appellants that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we
reverse all the examiner’s § 103 rejections.
However, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
of all of the claims on appeal stands on a different footing.
Inasmuch as appellants have not disputed the propriety of the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of record, we
summarily affirm this rejection.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007