Appeal No. 2001-1933
Application No. 08/940,058
reference applied under the principles of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ
430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [Under appropriate circumstances the PTO can require an
applicant to establish that a prior art product does not necessarily possess the
characteristics of the claimed product.]
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 15-17 and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Leonard in view of Borodkin, Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 15, 16 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Jacewicz in view of Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 - 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Leonard,
Jacewicz, Barnes, Pathak in view of Lieberman, Kai or Matsuda in further view of Lin,
Traue, Uekama, Byron, Ares, Francese, Damani, or Tovey is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007