Appeal No. 2001-1472
Application 08/772,878
between a thickness of the tube wall and a thickness of the
annulate of the annular flat surface of the power delivery end of
the tip” as required in claim 22, or any reasoning as to why or
how a tip of this specific configuration would result from
combining the teachings of Kühne and Wuchinich with Manna.
The examiner’s reasoning set forth on page 9 of the answer
(first full paragraph) is so cryptic as to defy understanding
and, at best, would appear to be a piecemeal combination of
diverse features from the various applied references and various
embodiments of tip configurations seen in Manna. In the final
analysis, it is our opinion that the examiner has failed to
provide an adequate evidential basis to support the § 103
rejection before us on appeal, and that the examiner has relied
upon impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from appellant’s
own teachings in attempting to reconstruct the claimed subject
matter out of isolated teachings in the prior art. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 22, or of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007