Appeal No. 1999-1581
Application No. 08/651,369
method “would perform equally well” as the disclosed and
claimed invention can not take the place of evidence that
demonstrates the obviousness of the claimed invention. In
summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5 through 7, 9 through 11 and 13 through 15 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 16 is
reversed because the teachings of Lee do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Ranta.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
3,
5 through 11 and 13 through 16 under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11 and 13 through
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007