Appeal No. 2004-0575
Application 09/206,005
impermissible 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. The examiner’s further reliance
on Hayashi does nothing to cure the above-noted defect in the
examiner’s position and, if anything, further exemplifies the
hindsight nature of the examiner’s rejection.
SUMMARY
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the “on sale” bar is sustained,
while that of claims 1 through 3, 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on “public use” is not sustained. In addition,
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over FR ‘272 in view of
Gilroy and Hayashi is not sustained.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007