Appeal No. 1999-1790
Application 08/707,206
essentially based upon the artisan’s prospective view of the applied
prior art rather than upon mere possibilities of combinability.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the artisan would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings of Oyama into Waltz’s system within
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
any independent claims 1, 10 and 19 on appeal within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We therefore reverse the rejection of those claims and the
respective dependent claims relying upon these references, as well
as the additional rejection of claims 4, 17 and 24 further relying
upon Hines. As such, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lance Leonard Barry )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007