Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
accelerating or decelerating. The examiner has not established,
and it is not apparent to us, that holding the speed of any of
Jeschke’s upstream units is a matter of concern. Accordingly,
there does not appear to be any reason, aside from the hindsight
knowledge afforded one who first reads appellant’s disclosure,
for providing items (ii) and (iii) in Jeschke based on the
teaching of Craemer. Because the Marschke reference additionally
relied upon in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-19, 22, 24-33, 36
and 37 does not make up for the deficiencies of Jeschke and
Craemer in this regard, the rejection of these claims based on
Jeschke, Craemer and Marschke cannot be sustained.
As to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37 based on
Jeschke in view of Craemer and Marschke and further in view of
Reponty (rejection (b)), we have reviewed the Reponty reference
additionally relied upon and find that it does not remedy the
deficiencies of Jeschke, Craemer and Marschke noted above.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-22 and 24-37 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jeschke,
Craemer, Marschke and Reponty also cannot be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007