Appeal No. 1997-4235
Application No. 08/464,426
As stated by a predecessor of our reviewing court,
“’[o]bviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.’” In
re Shetty, 566 F.2d 81, 86, 195 USPQ 753, 756-57 (CCPA
1977)(quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448, 150 USPQ 449,
452 (CCPA 1966)).
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (1) appealed claims 21 through 26
and 29 as unpatentable over Burton, Purinton, and the “the
appellant’s disclosure of the prior art,” in view of Missel and
(2) claims 27 and 28 as unpatentable over Burton, Purinton, and
the “the appellant’s disclosure of the prior art,” in view of
Missel and Traut.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007