Appeal No. 1999-2783
Application No. 08/654,034
Budge and Hill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Bromley, we have reviewed the Bromley patent, but find
nothing therein which provides for or overcomes that which we
have found lacking in the examiner's basis combination of
Fussell, Budge and Hill. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection
of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) also will not be
sustained.
The last of the examiner's rejections for our review is
that of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
collective teachings of Fussell and Hill. Again, for the
reasons stated above, we consider that Hill is non-analogous
prior art and would not have reasonably commended itself to
the appellant's attention given the particular problem he was
confronting. Moreover, like appellant, we also consider that
the examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight in
attempting to combine the disparate teachings of Fussell and
Hill so as to arrive at appellant's claimed floating
artificial weed line. Thus, the examiner's rejection of claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007