Appeal No. 1999-1797
Application No. 08/635,197
before us, the rejection appears to be based on a hindsight reconstruction of appellant’s
invention.
Appellant, on pages 12 and 13 of the Brief, refers to limitations in independent
claims 8 and 12 which are argued as rendering the subject matter as a whole nonobvious
over the reference. We agree that at least the fourth and fifth steps in claim 8 and claim
12, respectively, are not disclosed or suggested by Ramachandran. Since a prima facie
case of obviousness has not been established for any of the independent claims on
appeal, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-13.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-13 is reversed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007