Appeal No. 2001-0114
Application 09/240,712
obviousness rejections” or “Albertson obviousness rejections,”
but rather only section 103 obviousness rejections. Id. This
was further explained by our predecessor Court by stating
“[n]ecessarily it is facts appearing in the record, rather than
prior decisions in and of themselves, which must support the
legal conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” In re
Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 667, 148 USPQ 268, 271 (CCPA 1966).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 7 through 12, 16 through 21 and 24 through
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeczkowski.
In particular, we note that all the claims recite that at least a
portion of both the winding supports system is defined by a
single structure.
Now we will turn to the rejection of claims 5 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeczkowski in view
of Knapp and claims 6 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grzeczkowski in view of Knapp and Cameron.
Upon our view of Knapp and Cameron, we fail to find that either
reference teaches or suggests a single structure for providing a
pair of winding supports as required by the claims. Therefore,
we will not sustain these rejections as well.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007