Appeal No. 1997-4290
Application No. 08/218,647
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988). In the present case, the Examiner has not provided sufficient motivation for
combining Andersson ‘590 and Lachenal to make the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 18, 19, 23 to 27, 31, 32, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the combination of Andersson ‘590 and Lachenal is reversed. The
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Andersson
‘590, Lachenal and Basta is reversed. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the combination of Andersson ‘590, Lachenal and Andersson ‘695 is
reversed. The rejection of claims 28 to 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Andersson ‘590, Lachenal and Lindberg is reversed.
OTHER ISSUES
We leave these issues to be further explored by the Examiner prior to
disposition of the application. Claims 20, 21 and 29 appear to violate the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the effect of the language “following said
second stage” and “following said third stage” requires the steps to occur in a
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007