Appeal No. 1999-2311
Application 08/777,805
strong the examiner’s convictions are that the claimed
invention would have been obvious, or whether we might have an
intuitive belief that the claimed invention would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither
circumstance is a substitute for evidence lacking in the
record. Whether there is prior art available which would
render these appealed claims unpatentable we cannot say.
Whether the examiner could have developed a reasonable basis
for asserting the obviousness of the claimed invention based
on the present record we will not speculate. We can say,
however, that the record presently before us does not support
the rejection as formulated by the examiner. Therefore, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
14, 20 and 39 or of claims which depend therefrom based on
Barber and the rationale provided by the examiner.
For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-23, 28, 29, 32-37,
39-43, 46 and 51-54 is reversed.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007