Appeal No. 2002-1523
Application 09/524,811
slot and the size of the drainback hole that might address the
problem of “double pouring” confronted by appellant.
In responding to the examiner’s reliance on In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), and the examiner’s
assertion that Arnold “disclose[s] the general conditions of the
claim” (answer, page 4), appellant cites In re Antonie, 559 F.2d
618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) and notes that the parameters urged
by the examiner to be optimized are not recognized in Arnold to
be result effective variables, a condition precedent to any
determination that the optimum or workable ranges of said
variables may be arrived at through routine experimentation.
Thus, appellant concludes (and we agree) that Arnold does not
disclose the “general conditions” of the claims on appeal and
that the examiner’s position is entirely based upon hindsight
reconstruction and improper obvious to try reasoning.
Lacking any credible teachings in the applied prior art
itself which would appear to have fairly suggested the claimed
subject matter as a whole to a person of ordinary skill in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007