Appeal No. 2002-1022
Application 09/326,934
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
(CCPA 1967) cert. Denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
We have also again reviewed the patents to Andersen,
Yamamoto and Howard additionally relied upon by the examiner in
the rejection of claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
but find nothing in these references which would make up for or
otherwise supply the deficiencies noted above in the basic
combination to Ishibashi and Okuniewicz. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 18 through 20 will likewise not be sustained.
To summarize our decision, we note that a) the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) has been
sustained with regard to Andersen and Howard, but not with regard
to Yamamoto; b) the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) has been sustained with
respect to Andersen or Howard in view of Barrie or Marnell II or
Falciglia, but not with regard to Yamamoto in view of Barrie or
Marnell II or Falciglia; c) the examiner’s rejection of claims 9
through 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Ishibashi in
view of Okuniewicz has not been sustained; and d) the rejection
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007