Appeal No. 2003-058
Application 09/390,190
Malin’s shortcomings in this regard also undercut the examiner’s
application of Leibinger and Voeller in combination with Malin to
meet the aligning handle limitations in independent claims 8, 19
and 27. Absent any indication in Malin that the cross seal jaws
64 can be installed and removed as a modular unit, the only
suggestion for combining these jaws with a tool set holder as
disclosed by Leibinger and/or a cylinder head grip as disclosed
by Voeller for the examiner’s stated purpose of facilitating
alignment and removal of the cross seal jaws (see page 3 in the
final rejection) stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly
derived from the appellants’ disclosure. These gaps in the
examiner’s evidence of obviousness find no remedy in the further
application of Doede, Henry and the admitted prior art.
Thus, the prior art evidence applied by the examiner does
not justify a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claims 1 through 33 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. Therefore, we shall not sustain any of the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1 through 33.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007