Appeal No. 2003-0156
Application 09/607,996
an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the appellants’
invention wherein the examiner has used the claims as a blueprint
to selectively piece together isolated disclosures in the prior
art. Furthermore, these flaws in the Bachrach and Brault
combination find no cure in Miyazaki and/or Wyant.3
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1 through 9 as being unpatentable over
Bachrach in view of Brault, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 10 through 20, 22 through 24 and 26 as being
unpatentable over Bachrach in view of Brault and Miyazaki, or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 and 25 as
being unpatentable over Bachrach in vew of Brault, Miyazaki and
Wyant.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 26
is reversed.
3 As the references relied on by the examiner fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter recited in the appealed claims, there is no need
to delve into the merits of the appellants’ declaration evidence
of non-obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007