Appeal No. 2002-0363
Application No. 08/162,373
appearance as suggested by the examiner in view of the teachings of Bergmans would
undermine this objective. In this light, we are constrained to conclude that the only
motivation for combining Robinson and Bergmans in the manner proposed stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s own disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of Claims 93,
103, 122-124, and 126-141 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Bergmans.
VI. Additional issue for further consideration
Upon return of this application to the technology center, the examiner should
review Paper Nos. 7 and 8 for compliance with the signature requirement set forth in 37
CFR § 1.4.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 93, 103, 122-124, 126-141 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 93, 103, 122-124, 126-141 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007