Appeal No. 2000-0189 Page 7
Application No. 08/864,460
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to show that Holmes or Thomson
teaches or would have suggested the claimed limitations.
Rather than comparing the language of the claims with the
references, he merely describes the references. We will not
“resort to speculation,” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), as to where the claimed
limitations might be found in Holmes or Thomson. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claim 1-13 as obvious over Holmes
in view of Thomson.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-13 under § 103(a)
is reversed.
REVERSED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007