Appeal No. 2004-0104
Application No. 09/052,472
While apparently appreciating this deficiency in Landis, the
examiner takes the position that "[i]t is true that this
inherently throws off the second blanket cylinder but the
physical arrangement of Landis et al. does not alter the logical
combination of Firma and Pensavecchia as detailed above" (page 7
of Answer, last sentence). However, while we appreciate and
commend the examiner's effort in formulating a logical rationale
for combining the teachings of the applied prior art in support
of his conclusion of obviousness, we are, nonetheless, in
agreement with appellants that the examiner's logic is not based
on the teachings of the references but on what could have been
accomplished by one of ordinary skill in the art. This, of
course, is not the proper test for determining obviousness within
the meaning of § 103. In our view, the examiner has improperly
relied upon appellants' specification to determine what could
have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art based on the
technology available to him/her that is disclosed in the applied
references.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007