Appeal No. 2002-1213
Application No. 09/293,019
Since we are in agreement with appellants that the teachings
and suggestions that would have been fairly derived from AAPA,
Boucherie and Lui would not have made the subject matter as a
whole of claims 1 through 38 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants' invention, we must
refuse to sustain the examiner's rejection of those claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition, we REMAND this application to the examiner
for an in-depth consideration of the teachings of DE 4423145 and
GB 2108379, which documents were cited by appellants in the
Information Disclosure Statement filed July 12, 2000 (Paper No.
11). More particularly, we direct the examiner's attention to GB
2108379 which appears to address the same problem confronted by
appellants and to solve that problem in the same manner, i.e., by
providing a transport or feeding apparatus (1) for automatically
moving the molded brush bodies from the molding units (2) to a
processing machine (3), such as a brush filling and finishing
machine. As for DE 4423145, it appears that this document
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007