Appeal No. 2002-0420
Application No. 09/230,776
these references provide no factual support for the examiner’s
determination that the artisan would have appreciated Dunn’s
pulse irradiation techniques as being capable of promoting a
more complete and quicker triggering of Speer’s oxygen
scavenging initiation. The only suggestion for combining
these references in the manner proposed by the examiner stems
from an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the
appellants’ invention wherein the claims have been utilized as
a blueprint to selectively piece together disparate teachings
in the prior art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 26 and 32, and
dependent claims 27 through 31 and 33 through 38, as being
unpatentable over Speer in view of Dunn.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 26 through
38 is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007