Appeal No. 2002-1974
Application No. 09/023,953
indicates that the motivation relied upon by the Examiner suggesting the combination of
Hitachi and Cyron came from the Appellants’ description of their invention in the
specification rather than coming from the applied prior art and that, therefore, the
Examiner used impermissible hindsight in rejecting the claims. See W.L. Gore &
Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). For the
reasons stated above and in Appellants’ Brief, pages 15 to 18, we reverse all of the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3
3 All of the rejections under section 103 rely on combination of references that include Hitachi
and Cyron. The additional cited references do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Hitachi.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007