Appeal No. 2004-0119
Application 08/644,170
Cir. 1992), that it is impermissible for the examiner to use the
claimed invention as an instruction manual or "template" in
attempting to piece together isolated disclosures and teachings
of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Mino, Klingler, Zelenka and Ogden would not have made
the subject matter as a whole of independent claim 1 on appeal
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It follows
that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007