Appeal No. 2002-2074
Application No. 09/494,965
from an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
invention.
Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 54, 62 and 63, and dependent
claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 33 through 35 and 55, as being
unpatentable over Wood in view of Sweeney.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 32 as being
unpatentable over Wood in view of Sweeney and O’Brien
Since O’Brien does not cure the foregoing shortcomings of
the Wood and Sweeney combination relative to parent claim 1, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 32 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of
Sweeney and O’Brien.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 54 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sweeney is affirmed;
b) to reject claims 1, 54, 62 and 63 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Garrett in view of Wood is reversed;
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007