Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
authority.”); see also In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(“[T]he best defense against the
subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness
analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing
of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references.”).
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting the claims on appeal under Section 103.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007