Appeal No. 2002-1840
Application 09/134,993
so as to arrive at the invention set forth in claim 1 stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s
disclosure.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Liebl in view of
Burrus and Zaehring.
As Narayana does not cure the above noted shortcomings of
the basic reference combination relative to the subject matter
recited in parent claim 1, we also shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 through 19 as
being unpatentable over Liebl in view of Burrus, Zaehring and
Narayana.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007