Appeal No. 2001-0610 Page 9
Application No. 08/931,932
as to overcome the deficiencies noted in our discussion of the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for to do so would require a wholesale reconstruction of the Ohlson
system and would destroy Ohlson’s invention, and that would be a disincentive for the
artisan to undertake. Moreover, the only suggestion for doing so is found in the hindsight
afforded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure, which is an impermissible basis
for a rejection under Section 103.4
SUMMARY
None of the rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007