Appeal 2006-1324
Application 09/882,127
and around a patient’s body. None of the references provides a teaching that
such a sensor would maintain accuracy at elevated temperatures as claimed.
Thus, none of the references provides any motivation for using a Wiegand
wire as a transducer in place of the Hall effect transducer in Appellant’s
admitted prior art. The other references are concerned with materials for the
Wiegand wire itself and cannot provide any teaching, suggestion or
motivation for the substitution of a Wiegand wire into Appellant’s admitted
prior art.
Following the jurisprudence, when we find no teaching, suggestion or
motivation in the Examiner’s rejections, we must infer that the Examiner’s
combination of references is based on impermissible hindsight. That is the
case here.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The examiner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the obviousness of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-23, 25 and 27-43.
ORDER
The rejections of the claims on appeal are reversed.
REVERSED
vsh
PHILIP S. JOHNSON
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ONE JOHNSON & JOHNSON PLAZA
NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08933-7003
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013