Appeal No. 1998-2890
Application No. 08/811,142
Fig. 2, is simply inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous
underlying specification which describes the power source 12 as
being "located within the shelter 14" in a secondary room
(specification, page 6). Akin to our earlier conclusion, we
readily discern that, absent appellants' own teaching, the "Prior
Art" Fig. 2 alone would not have been suggestive of the claimed
subject matter. Since the evidence before us would not have
rendered the methods of claims 5 through 8 obvious, the rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) cannot be sustained.
In summary, since the evidence proffered by the examiner
does not support a conclusion of obviousness, we have not
sustained either of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
before us.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007