Appeal No. 2001-0006
Application 08/993,107
specification page 2 of appellants' assessment of the admitted
prior art).
We are therefore left to conclude that the level, the degree
or the quality of evidence of suggestibility from the perspective
of the artisan falls short of what 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires to
have rendered obvious the subject matter of the present claims on
appeal. There are simply too many loose ends in the record for
us to agree with the examiner's position. There are essentially
too many inferences to be derived by the artisan that remain
unexplained by the examiner's reasoning and the art applied.
Even if we agree with the examiner's views as to the
suggestibility at the bottom of column 3 in Micka, it appears to
be unappreciated by Micka himself since it is undeveloped in his
own patent. The artisan is therefore left with the whole burden
to derive the meaningfulness of the statement at column 3, lines
53-56 of Micka and the meaningfulness of it as it relates to the
other art relied upon by the examiner. There is simply too much
speculation that we see the artisan would have to entertain for
us to agree with the examiner's view of the obviousness of the
subject matter of the claims on appeal. We therefore cannot
determine independently of the examiner's views that the subject
matter of the present claims on appeal would have been obvious to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007