Appeal No. 2002-1572
Application No. 09/286,088
on undue speculation and conjecture rather than on sound factual
support in the reference.
Thus, the combined teachings of Haas and Fukuoka do not
justify a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claim 7 and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 7, and dependent claims 8 through 11, as being
unpatentable over Haas in view of Fukuoka.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 through 11
is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007