Appeal No. 2000-1963
Application No. 09/272,989
attachment and arguably would make it more difficult. In this
light, and given the markedly disparate natures of the devices
respectively disclosed by Villarreal and Bock, it is evident
that the only suggestion for combining these references in the
manner advanced by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s own disclosure.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Villarreal in
view of Bock.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007