Appeal No. 2001-0961
Application No. 08/108,133
quite apparent that the examiner has selectively picked and
chosen individual features from each of the reference items and
combined them in a manner to recreate the claimed invention in
hindsight. We agree with appellant that the designer of ordinary
skill would not have been motivated to combine the applied
references to arrive at the claimed invention.
We also note for the record that the examiner erred in
failing to address the objective evidence of non-obviousness as
set forth in the declaration filed by Kenneth Rogers. As noted
by appellant and as set forth in the MPEP § 1504.04, the examiner
must consider objective evidence of non-obviousness when it is
presented. Failure to consider such evidence would be grounds by
itself to reverse the examiner’s rejection.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007