Appeal No. 1999-0431
Application 08/541,135
claim 1 can only result from the teachings of Guzay and
Clemence if one is attempting to reconstruct the claimed
invention in hindsight. Such a hindsight reconstruction of
the invention is improper. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-11 as formulated by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 12-21 based on
the teachings of Guzay, Clemence and Feitzelmayer. These
claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page
7]. The examiner cites Feitzelmayer to teach certain details
of the claimed inner and outer sleeves. The examiner
acknowledges that Feitzelmayer was not cited to overcome any
deficiencies in the combination of Guzay and Clemence.
Appellant argues that Feitzelmayer has no relationship to the
claimed invention and does not overcome the deficiencies in
the basic combination of Guzay and Clemence.
We agree with appellant. Since Feitzelmayer does not
overcome the basic deficiencies in the combination of Guzay
and Clemence discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 12-21 for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007