Appeal No. 2003-0072
Application No. 09/032,407
transaction...” (answer-page 21).
The examiner’s rationale for combining the references in
rejecting claims 22-30 also appears to be based more on hindsight
than on what the skilled artisan would have gleaned from these
references. But, in any event, since the initial combination of
Ginter and Schneier was flawed, for the reasons supra, and
Matyas, Rosen 407 and Tozzoli do not provide for the deficiencies
thereof, we also will not sustain the rejection of claims 22-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner’s entire rationale appears to us to be a patch
quilt of bits and pieces of the applied references, and disparate
recitations in those references. We remain unconvinced that an
artisan, on his/her own, without the guidance of appellants’
disclosure, would have combined the applied references in a
manner as to result in the instant claimed invention.
-12–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007